Allowed

Rekha & Anr. v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024BAIL APPLN./3071/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application for offences under cheating and forgery was allowed. The court held that since the chargesheet was filed and co-accused were released, custodial interrogation was not required. Applicants were admitted on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Applicants admitted on bail on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety of like amount respectively.

Rekha & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3071/2020

¶4

REKHA & ANR. ..... Applicants Through: Mr. Narender Tomar, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the State with SI Vinod Kumar, PS GK-I.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 07.02.2024

¶9

The present application is filed by the applicants under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 202/2019, dated 16.10.2019, for the offences under Sections 420/406/120B/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash.

¶10

It is alleged that the applicants, along with the other coaccused persons, had induced the complainant to invest in their Partnership Firm ‘M/s. Kapura Wines’, and taken a loan of approximately ₹1.07 crores from the complainant, on the basis of certain forged documents. Some of the loan amount was repaid, however, the balance dues were not cleared, which led to filing of a complaint and consequently the present FIR. Applicant No. 1 is the wife of the co-accused Ramesh Kapura, and Applicant No. 2 is his sister.

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

BAIL APPLN. 3071/2020

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:40

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that Applicant No.2 was not a partner in the concerned partnership firm and Applicant No.1 was merely a sleeping partner in the same. He further submits that the amount was taken by coaccused persons, and the applicants have been assigned no specific role in the said FIR.

¶15

It is pointed out that the co-accused Sanjay has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court by the order dated 24.12.2021. It is also pointed out that the co-accused Ramesh Kapura was arrested on 16.02.2020, and has also been admitted on bail by the learned Trial Court by the order dated 07.06.2022.

¶16

Notice in the present application was issued on 13.10.2020. It was also directed that no coercive steps be taken against the applicants, subject to the applicants joining investigation as and when required by the investigating Officer. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the supplementary chargesheet has also been filed in the present case, where Applicant No. 2 has been kept in column No. 12.

¶17

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand : (2023) 8 SCC 632 has observed as under:

¶18

“15. What appears from the record is that the appellant cooperated with the investigation both before 8-8-2022, when no protection was granted to him and after 8-8-2022, when he enjoyed protection till the filing of the charge-sheet and the cognizance thereof on 1-10-2022. Thus, once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

BAIL APPLN. 3071/2020

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:40

¶23

bail before the trial court. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

¶24

16. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. Before parting, the Court would direct all the courts seized of proceedings to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449 : (2014) 8 SCR 128] and reiterate the directions contained thereunder, as well as other directions.”

¶25

Thus, considering the fact that the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet have already been filed, and moreover, the co-accused persons have already been released on bail, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required.

¶26

In view of the above, the applicants are admitted on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount respectively, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions:

¶27

a. The applicants shall join and cooperate with the further investigation as and when directed by the IO;

¶28

b. The applicants will not leave the boundaries of the National Capital Region without informing the IO/ SHO concerned;

¶29

c. The applicants shall not contact the complainant / witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner;

¶30

d. The applicants shall give their mobile numbers to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep their mobile phones switched on at all times.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

BAIL APPLN. 3071/2020

¶33

¶34

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal.

¶35

The bail application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

It is clarified that the observations made in the present case are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶37

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶38

FEBRUARY 7, 2024

¶39

“hkaur”

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

BAIL APPLN. 3071/2020

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:40

Rekha & Anr. v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha & Anr. v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Jain & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd Yamin & Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bagender Manjhi Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Deepak Kumar Mishra Vs Priya Mishra

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs M/S Riya Garments & Anr.

Chetan Ghai Vs Nidhi Ghai