Manju Singhal v. The State of Delhi

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Manju Singhal under section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 89/2019 u/s. 420/34 IPC.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail 2019:DHC:7007 Bail Appl. no. 2793/2019 Page no.2 on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It is submitted false FIR has been registered against the accused persons u/s. 420/34 IPC in the PS DBG Road which is not having the jurisdiction as no offence has been committed in the jurisdiction of the said PS and complainant is also not residing in the jurisdiction of said PS. The police came to the residence of petitioner along with the complainant and misbehaved with the petitioner and other family members. It is submitted that daughter of the petitioner is staying in Noida along with her friends. The police officers along with the complainant entered the house in the middle of the night and harassed them badly. It is submitted that present case is a civil dispute which has been given a flavour of criminal complaint. It is submitted that whole of the alleged cheated amount has been returned. A part of the sum has been paid and a part has been deposited in Court.

3. It is submitted that petitioner had earlier also moved anticipatory bail application which was dismissed by this Court on 04.09.2019.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that matter was referred to Mediation and Ld counsel for the petitioner had offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs with the Ld. Trial Court. However, parties failed to arrive at any amicable settlement due to which petitioner has not deposited any amount before the Ld. Trial Court.

5. It is submitted that petitioner is not keeping well and suffering from various ailments and keeping in view the fact that she is ready to join the investigation as and when required, she be released on Bail Appl. no. 2793/2019 Page no.3 bail in the event of her arrest.

6. The application is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She is involved in offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy. Ld. APP has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

7. I have considered the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case law. i). H.B. Chaturvedi vs. CBI, 2010 [3] JCC 2109. ii). Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujrat & Anr., Crl. Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2015 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6028-6029 of 2014] iii). Jitender Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. NO. 2707/2015 and Crl. M. (Bail) No. 8361/2015. iv). Amit Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Crl. A.(SJ) NO. 1762/2019[arising out of PS. Case No.7 Year 2019 Thana- Mirrwan, Distt. Siwan. v). Siddharam Satligappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2011 SCC 312, vi) Lalita Kumar Vs. Govt of U.P & Ors., 2013 SCC Online SC

999. I have gone through the above case law. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein. However, the present bail application is distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated herein. The complainant Mr. Sahab Singh, who is authorized representative of M/s. Kamdhenu Global Ltd. and Devine Solution Private Ltd. had given a written complaint at PS DBG Road alleging that petitioner co-accuseds visited the house of victim Sh. Tarun Swaroop Aggarwal and represented them as big property owner in MP including flour mill in MP. They allured the Bail Appl. no. 2793/2019 Page no.4 complainant that huge profit can be generated by buying their family business/ flour mill. The complainant purchased the flour mill, after that alleged persons offered him to supply the raw material i.e. Chana, Wheat and other related products at subsidized/ cheaper rates. On the inducement of alleged persons, the complainant initially made payment of Rs. 30 lacs which were transferred through RTGS in account No. 06105011000545 of the husband of the petitioner Vinod Kumar Singhal maintained in OBC Bank, Guna, MP for starting the said flour mill. The complainant also paid Rs.65 lacs to the accused persons from another firm namely M/s. Divine Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for the same purpose but after making the entire payment, the petitioner neither turned up nor supplied any raw material for starting the said flour mill and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. The complainant started putting pressure upon the alleged persons to refund his amount Rs.95,00,000/-. The alleged persons returned Rs. 50,00,000/- to gain trust of the complainant. After some time petitoner Manju Singhal and co-accused Mayank Singhal approached the complainant and stated that due to some difficulty they were not able to supply the consignment and assured that if the complainant makes further payment in advance they guarantee the supply of raw material. As the complainant’s flour mill was non-functional due to unavailability of raw material and his payment for raw material was struck with the accused and he was incurring increasing losses, the complainant agreed for the same and again transferred Rs.57,00,000/- to the accused persons. But despite this, the accused persons did not supply the raw material and when Bail Appl. no. 2793/2019 Page no.5 he pressurized the accused persons for either delivery of material or return of his advance payment, they started extending threats to the complainant and stated that in case either the complainant or any one on his behalf visits Guna, MP, they will have to face dire consequences.

8. On complaint of the complainant, present FIR was registered after preliminary enquiry. The alleged transactions between the complainant and accused persons were got verified from respective banks and transactions details were also obtained. Perusal of which confirmed the payment to accused persons from the account of the complainant’s firm. A notice u/s. 41-A CrPC was served upon the petitioner to join the investigation, but she had not joined the investigation. Subsequent to which NBWs were issued against her. Petitioner was declared as absconder by the Ld. Trial Court. Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated against the petitioner as well as co-accused Vinod Kumar Singhal.

9. The perusal of the above facts reveals that the petitioner alongwith her family members has entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated the complainant of an huge amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore and Twenty Lacs) approximately. So far as contention of the petitioner that whole of the cheated amount has been paid is concerned, this court is of the opinion that the documents filed by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage for the reason that at the stage of bail, the Court is not supposed to appreciate and analyse the evidence appearing on record. The case is still at the initial stage of investigation. Deposit of a part of the Bail Appl. no. 2793/2019 Page no.6 cheated amount by co-accuseds does not entitle the petitioner to grant of anticipatory bail when still according to prosecution a large amount is yet to be recovered. Moreover, this Court cannot ignore the fact that petitioner is not joining the investigation and NBWs were issued against her. Even proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated against her. The first anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 04.09.2019 and since then there is no change in the circumstances. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required to recover the cheated amount and, therefore, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 16, 2019 Amit