Amit Yadav v. State

1. By way of present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR bearing no. 46/2020 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The present FIR was registered on 31.01.2020 on the basis of statement of the complainant Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal who had alleged that the applicant/accused Amit Yadav, who was working with Delhi Police as Head Constable and was posted in the BDT Branch of Sec.-12, R.K. Puram, Delhi, had been operating various money investing schemes (popularly known as ‘committee’ in Hindi) groups under his name and collecting payments through these investing schemes from the members while promising a beneficial return. It was alleged that the applicant had allured the complainant to join the investing schemes, assuring that his money would be safe and he would return it well within time. It was further alleged that over the last few years, the applicant had been taking money from the complainant and instead of returning the amount on maturity, he had involved the complainant in new investing schemes everytime. As stated by the complainant, the applicant had not returned even his principal amount of Rs. 1.95 crores. Thus, the present FIR had been registered under Sections 406/420 IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, a detailed statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he informed that he had known the applicant/accused since the year 2012, and that the applicant used to run small money investing schemes from Sector-8, RK Puram Market. It was stated that complainant had earlier invested Rs. 9 lakhs in 2012, Rs. 15 lakhs in 2013 and Rs. 48 lakhs in 2014, and the same had been returned on time alongwith promised interest/benefits. It was further stated that in October, 2016, the complainant had invested about Rs.1.95 crores in different investing schemes operated by the applicant/accused, which he had taken on pretext of investing in housing projects, but the same had never been returned to the complainant. Further during investigation, statements of some of the shopkeepers of Sector-8, RK Puram market were recorded who informed that the accused had been operating such investing schemes.

4. The applicant had then preferred an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court which was dismissed on 17.03.2020 and the anticipatory bail application filed before this Court was also dismissed on 20.05.2020. Thereafter, the applicant had again filed the instant application seeking anticipatory bail on 11.06.2020, primarily on the ground that he was willing to settle the matter as the offence alleged was compoundable in nature and that he was willing to pay Rs. 20 lakhs at the very outset to the complainant by way of demand drafts and was also willing to mediate the dispute regarding the remaining amount. On 19.06.2020, this Court was informed that the parties had agreed that applicant would pay Rs. 31 lakhs to the complainant by 31.07.2020 and remaining amount would be settled by way of mediation, pursuant to which the matter was referred to mediation and interim protection was granted to the present accused/applicant.

5. During the pendency of these proceedings, one more complainant/victim namely Sh. Subhash Sharma had filed a complaint against the applicant/accused on 28.07.2020 at P.S. RK Puram and had joined the investigation. The complainant Subhash Sharma had informed that he had initially invested in seven investing schemes run by the applicant and had got his money back alongwith the benefits. Thereafter, he invested in six other investing schemes run by the applicant but this time, the applicant had failed to return his money and had rather induced him to further invest in 07 other investing schemes. In total, as alleged, the complainant had invested Rs.92.12 lakhs, but the same were never returned to him, except on one occasion when the applicant had paid him Rs.[5] lakhs through a cheque. During investigation, the complainant had also handed over three diaries having calculation of these investing schemes, allegedly having original signatures of the accused and that the same had been sent to FSL for expert opinion.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2020, however, the investigation has not yet been completed deliberately by the investigating officer. It is stated that the applicant has already paid Rs.81 lakhs i.e. Rs.31 lakhs to the complainant Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal and has deposited Rs.50 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court. It is also stated that the applicant was granted interim protection from arrest three years back, after which he had joined investigation from time to time and had even handed over all the necessary documents and even his signatures for the purposes of FSL examination, and thus the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is further stated that for three years, the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him, but the investigating officer has been again summoning the applicant and his family members to join the investigation. In these circumstances, it is argued that the present application be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for complainant Subhash Sharma submits that the earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court on 20.05.2020 and this application was immediately filed again before this Court purely on grounds of settlement. It is also stated that the accused had initially paid Rs.31 lakhs and had then settled the dispute for Rs.[1] crore, but had later withdrawn from the settlement and had delayed the proceedings from time to time. It is argued that though the matter had been settled between the parties, the applicant has failed to comply with the same, in view of which, the present bail application be dismissed.

8. Learned APP for the State argues that the FSL result qua the signatures of the applicant is awaited in the present case. It is stated that as per mediation report, several dates and opportunities had been given to the applicant, however, he had been enjoying interim protection since June, 2020 and has failed to comply with the settlement.

9. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both sides and has perused the material on record.

10. After hearing arguments and going through the case file as well as the previous orders of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, after the anticipatory bail application of the applicant had been dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.05.2020, the applicant had sought grant of anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that he was willing to settle the dispute with the original complainant. Pursuant to such statements made by the applicant and willingness shown by the complainant, the matter had been referred to mediation on 19.06.2020, while extending interim protection to the application, subject to him joining the investigation. On 05.04.2021, this Court was informed that the mediation proceedings had failed but the parties were again willing to settle the matter, for which, the matter was sent to mediation for a second time. On 17.08.2021, it was informed on behalf of the applicant that to show his bonafide, the applicant was willing to deposit Rs.50 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court, for which a period of three months was granted by this Court. However, the applicant thereafter had sought extensions from time to time. A perusal of order sheets reveal that on 16.12.2021, time was sought on the ground that since time to deposit the amount had already elapsed, some more time may be given as the demand draft of Rs.22 lakhs had already been prepared and accordingly, two more days were granted to do the needful. On the same day, further time of three months was also sought to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.28 lakhs and this Court had directed to do the needful by 28.02.2022. Thereafter, time was again sought on 28.01.2022 to deposit Rs.22 lakhs and the applicant was directed to do the same within a period of five days. Again on 07.04.2022, a period of four weeks was granted to the applicant to deposit Rs.28 lakhs before the learned Registrar General of this Court. Upon failure to deposit the same as per the directions of this Court, time was again sought on behalf of applicant and this Court vide order dated 12.07.2022 had granted one week time to deposit the same, only after the which the entire amount was deposited by the applicant. Thus, he delayed the proceedings by first securing interim protection primarily on the ground of compromise and later withdrew from it. He cannot now plead that he has enjoyed interim protection since long and therefore, should be granted bail. The interim protection was not granted on merit but on the basis of compromise, from which he has now withdrawn.

11. Thus, in the present case, a perusal of records reveal that the present applicant had lured individuals to invest in investing schemes operated by him under the false pretext of providing high returns and benefits to the investors. The modus operandi adopted by the applicant, as reflected from the records, involved initially returning the money to the investors along with the promised benefits, gaining their trust, and then refusing to return the money after securing more funds from them.

12. According to Status Report filed on record, statements of several individuals were recorded, corroborating that the applicant indeed operated such investing schemes and acquired money from investors by enticing them with the prospect of high returns. The result of the FSL examination of the signatures, allegedly of the applicant and found in the diary containing details of various transactions submitted by complainant no. 2 to the investigating officer, is still awaited. The amount allegedly swindled by the applicant amounts to approximately Rs. 2.85 crores, encompassing the claims made by both complainant no. 1 and complainant no. 2.

13. The factors to be taken into account while considering grant of anticipatory bail, as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar CK 2022 SCC Online SC 1529, are (i) prima facie case against accused, (ii) nature of offence, and (iii) severity of the punishment, and it was also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

14. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the cases as well as conduct of the accused noted above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present accused/applicant.

15. Accordingly, the present bail application along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.