Krishan Kumar v. The State

1. As all the three bail applications arise out of one common FIR, the same are being heard and disposed oftogether by this common order.

2. So far as bail application with respect to the applicant Krishan Kumar is eoneeraed, the same'has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.449/2019, registered under Sections 354/354C/406/420/384/506/120B IPG, at Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi, whereas the other two applicants, namely Ankur Rijhwani and Varun Rijhwani are seeking antieipatoiy bail in the said FIR.

3. I have heard leamed counselfor the petitioners as well asleamed APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records.

4. Leamed counsel for the applicant Krishan Kumar submitted that there is no material collected by theInvestigating Agency which connects the BAILAPPLN.54/2020 ^ applicant with the present case. He further submits that whereas in the complainant, the complainant has stated that the ineident occurred in the year 2016,however,later she has improved her version by stating that the incident is ofthe year 2018.It is further submitted by him thatthe applicant has already handed over his mobile phone and laptop to the Investigating Officer and nothing incriminating has beenfound againsthim.It was further submitted thatthe applicant is in custody since 26.12.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants Ankur Rijhwani and Varun Rijhwani submitted that the applicants were known to the complainant for the past many years. The complainant has levelled allegations which are neither specifie about the date nor in the manner in which.the money/jewellery articles are stated to be handed over to the said applicants. He further submitted that in fact the applicants have given a loan ofRs.20 lacs to the eomplainant in March, 2018 and submits that in this regard, a complaint dated 25.11.2019 has been made to the Police against the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant had issued a post dated cheque ofIDBI Bank for sum ofRs.20 lacs in favour ofthe applicant Ankur Rijhwani.

6. Learned APP for the State,duly assisted by the leamed counsel forthe complainant has submitted that the applicant Krishan Kumar had blackmailed and threatened the complainant of uploading her vulgar video on the social media and demanded Rs.l crore from the complainant.Further, the mobile phones ofthe complainant as well as the applicants have been seized.Leamed APP,on instmetions,further submits that the mobile phone is yetto be sent for the FSL examination. BAILAPPLN.54/2020 ^ ^ that the complainant has produced the photographs which show that the jewellery pledged with Sai FinCorp Pvt.Ltd.belonged to her.

10. It is further submitted that the complainant had lastly received a message on 18.09.2018 and on verification, the sender's mobile is found belonging to one Ajit. On investigation, Ajit has stated that he was an employee of the applicants Ankur Rijhwani and Varun Rijhwani. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Ajit, in which it has been stated that on the afore-mentioned date, the abovenamed petitioners had boiTowed his mobile phone. A perusal of the message indicates that the money was demanded from the complainant.

11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the bail applications. The above-noted bail applications are dismissed.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI,J FEBRUAR^04,2020 'dc'