Full Text
Translation output
r HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.125/2018& Crl. M.A.883/2018
SHASHISEHGAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Sharma& Mr.Harpreet Singh Rai,Advs.
BAIL APPLN.125/2018& Crl. M.A.883/2018
SHASHISEHGAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Sharma& Mr.Harpreet Singh Rai,Advs.
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma,APP for State.
, BAIL APPLN.126/2018 & Crl.M.A.884/2018 RAJENDER@RAJU GOENKA Petitioner
Through: Mr.AmitSharma& Mr.Harpreet Singh Rai,Advs.
Through: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma,APP for State.
, BAIL APPLN.126/2018 & Crl.M.A.884/2018 RAJENDER@RAJU GOENKA Petitioner
Through: Mr.AmitSharma& Mr.Harpreet Singh Rai,Advs.
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma,APP for State.
Through: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma,APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
03.07.2018 These applications for anticipatory bail have been moved by Shashi
Sehgal,son oflate Sardarilal Sehgal and Rajender @ Raju Goenka,son of
Late^Beniprasad Goenka in the context of FIR No. 751/2014 of police station Subhash Palace which is under investigation for offences allegedly committed includingthose punishable under sections 420/468/471 IPG. The petitioners are described in the FIR as directors ofthe company named and
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page 1 of4 2018:DHC:8219 styled as M/s Vivaan Fashion Pvt.Ltd.(VFPL). The FIR has been lodged by
Sachin Malhotra describing himself as proprietor of M/s Balaji Traders doing business from premises in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It is his allegation that in December,2012 he was contacted by one Mr. Mihir Somaiya,senior official of VFPL and thereafter, through him, by Mr. Rakesh Modi, CEO and the petitioners herein. It is alleged by him that he was told that VFPL deals in garments under the brand name of"SEPIA". It is alleged by him that he was induced to join retail business ofthe said garments under the brand name of SEPIA as a franchisee of the company VFPL, by the said official Mr.Mihir Somaiya and CEO Mr.Rakesh Modi,the petitioners later introduced having also given assurances in the context of such franchisee being lucrative business. Formal business arrangement between VFPL and the complainant is stated to have been entered upon through execution of franchisee agreement and pursuant to the said contract, the complainant claims to have deposited Rs. 8 lakhs with the company. It is alleged that there was shortage ofsupply ofitems by VFPL and when he asked for more stocks he wastold thatthe same could be provided ifsome liquid funds were made available and pursuant to this he had given Rs. 25 lakhs in cash without any documentation. The prime grievance raised in the FIR is that the company VFPL had failed to honour its promise ofassured return ofRs.
2.85 lakhs per month, the first cheque of assured liability towards the complainant having been given in the sum of Rs. 7.83 lakhs only after protests. It is alleged by him that in September,2013 when he visited the office of VFPL in Mumbai, the petitioners herein used abusive and threatening language and had given to him a documenfin the nature of
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page2of4 ^ agreement termination letter. It is alleged that his signatures on the said documenthave been forged.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State informed the Court that questioned document had been sent for examination and opinion to
Forensic Science Laboratory butthe reportis non-conclusive.
In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, where the investigation is likely to take some time to conclude, the allegations made having connection with business transactions,given the limited role referred to above attributed to the petitioners, a case for they to be admitted on anticipatory bail has been made put.
Thus,it is directed that in the event ofthe petitioners be arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount subjectto the following further conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and join the same as and when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that of the surety to the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;and
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page 3of4 (v). They shall notleave India withoutthe previous permission ofthe trial court.
(vi) This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on conclusion ofthe investigation and process being issued against them by the court of cognizance.
Dasti.
.K.GAUBA,J JULY 03,2018 nk BAIL APPLN.125-26/2018 page4of4
03.07.2018 These applications for anticipatory bail have been moved by Shashi
Sehgal,son oflate Sardarilal Sehgal and Rajender @ Raju Goenka,son of
Late^Beniprasad Goenka in the context of FIR No. 751/2014 of police station Subhash Palace which is under investigation for offences allegedly committed includingthose punishable under sections 420/468/471 IPG. The petitioners are described in the FIR as directors ofthe company named and
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page 1 of4 2018:DHC:8219 styled as M/s Vivaan Fashion Pvt.Ltd.(VFPL). The FIR has been lodged by
Sachin Malhotra describing himself as proprietor of M/s Balaji Traders doing business from premises in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It is his allegation that in December,2012 he was contacted by one Mr. Mihir Somaiya,senior official of VFPL and thereafter, through him, by Mr. Rakesh Modi, CEO and the petitioners herein. It is alleged by him that he was told that VFPL deals in garments under the brand name of"SEPIA". It is alleged by him that he was induced to join retail business ofthe said garments under the brand name of SEPIA as a franchisee of the company VFPL, by the said official Mr.Mihir Somaiya and CEO Mr.Rakesh Modi,the petitioners later introduced having also given assurances in the context of such franchisee being lucrative business. Formal business arrangement between VFPL and the complainant is stated to have been entered upon through execution of franchisee agreement and pursuant to the said contract, the complainant claims to have deposited Rs. 8 lakhs with the company. It is alleged that there was shortage ofsupply ofitems by VFPL and when he asked for more stocks he wastold thatthe same could be provided ifsome liquid funds were made available and pursuant to this he had given Rs. 25 lakhs in cash without any documentation. The prime grievance raised in the FIR is that the company VFPL had failed to honour its promise ofassured return ofRs.
2.85 lakhs per month, the first cheque of assured liability towards the complainant having been given in the sum of Rs. 7.83 lakhs only after protests. It is alleged by him that in September,2013 when he visited the office of VFPL in Mumbai, the petitioners herein used abusive and threatening language and had given to him a documenfin the nature of
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page2of4 ^ agreement termination letter. It is alleged that his signatures on the said documenthave been forged.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State informed the Court that questioned document had been sent for examination and opinion to
Forensic Science Laboratory butthe reportis non-conclusive.
In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, where the investigation is likely to take some time to conclude, the allegations made having connection with business transactions,given the limited role referred to above attributed to the petitioners, a case for they to be admitted on anticipatory bail has been made put.
Thus,it is directed that in the event ofthe petitioners be arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount subjectto the following further conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and join the same as and when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that of the surety to the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;and
BAIL APPLN. 125-26/2018 page 3of4 (v). They shall notleave India withoutthe previous permission ofthe trial court.
(vi) This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on conclusion ofthe investigation and process being issued against them by the court of cognizance.
Dasti.
.K.GAUBA,J JULY 03,2018 nk BAIL APPLN.125-26/2018 page4of4
JUDGMENT