Gulam Dustgeer Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR NO. 404/2024 of PS Adarsh Nagar for offence under Section 420/406/34 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant de facto.

2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The complainant de facto is working as super distributor with X company. The accused/applicant is working as distributor under the complainant de facto. Both parties are engaged in routine business transactions and payment of money, whereunder GIRISH KATHPALIA the complainant de facto would transfer units in the account of X company and value thereof would be paid by the accused/applicant. In the course of such transactions, the accused/applicant stopped paying money to the complainant de facto. That led to registration of the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant contends that what is at the most a civil liability, is being given colour of criminality so as to pressurize the accused/applicant to pay unjustified amount. It is also argued that in order to make out a case of cheating, the alleged dishonest intention has to be at the inception of the transaction, regarding which there is no allegation.

4. Learned APP submits that the only objection to grant of anticipatory bail is that the accused/applicant would not join investigation if not arrested.

5. Learned counsel for complainant de facto contends that custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant must be done in order to find out as to whether he has siphoned off the funds into different accounts.

6. So far as the availability of the accused/applicant in investigation is concerned, that obviously has to be kept in mind. But for that purpose, the accused/applicant can be warned not to evade investigation.

7. Prima facie, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for accused/applicant about the ingredients of the offence alleged against the KATHPALIA accused/applicant. At the stage of examining the issue of liberty of the accused/applicant, this Court would be circumspect not to overstep into the jurisdiction of the trial court on this aspect.

8. Considering the above circumstances, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO. It is also directed that the accused/applicant shall join investigation, as and when directed by the IO in writing. (JUDGE) AUGUST 8, 2025