Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2961/2013
CHOPRA MARKETING P. LTD. Petitioner Representedby: Mr.Diwakar Singh,Adv.
Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. for R-2 SI Gulshan Gupta EOW
CHOPRA MARKETING PVT LTD Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Diwakar Singh, Adv.
Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. for R-2 SI Gulshan Gupta EOW
07.09.2016
ORDER
1. Whereas respondent No.2: Ajay Gupta in Crl.M.C.No.2961/2013 has been granted regular bail, the respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C.No.3399/2013: R.P.Jain has been granted anticipatory bail. Both CrI.M.C. 2961/2013 &3399/2013 Page[1] of 3 2016:DHC:8988 2:^ have been directed to join investigation and deposit their passports with the Investigating Officer.
2. The two captioned petitions seek setting aside ofthe order dated July 15, 2013 and July 23, 2013 granting bail and anticipatory bail respectively.
3. A perusal of the complaint resulting in FIR No.174/2012 PS E.O.W. for offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC would evince that the principal role alleged is against one H.P.Singh, Advocate and Sonal Joshi, Advocate. As per the complaint the two lawyers represented that they were clients ofone Salman Rushdie and H.P.Singh, Advocate claimed to be the attorney of Salman Rushdie. The two took the complainant to late Vijay Shankar Dass, Advocate. It is further stated that on the basis ofthe representations made by the advocates the complainant entered into an agreement to sell and later onlearnt that one Bhiku Ram Jain was litigating for the property which bears No.4, Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi with Salman Rushdie. As per the complaint, H.P.Singh and Sonal Joshi took Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant without any receipt being issued. Names of Ajay Gupta and R.P.Jain are not mentioned in the complaint.
4. The involvement of Ajay Gupta appears to be on account of he being a Director of a company Fine Properties Pvt. Ltd, which seems to have dabbled with the property in question. The name ofR.P.Jain appears to have surfaced subsequently, he being son of late Shri Neem Chand Jain and related to Shri Bhiku Ram Jain.
5. Concededly, the main accused H.P.Singh, Advocate was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the order challenging the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court. CrI.M.C. 2961/2013 &3399/2013 Page 2of 3
6. It is not the case pleaded in the petitions that the two respondents are threatening the witnesses or tampering with evidence. It is not the case that said respondents are not co-operating in the investigation.
7. Highlighting that the two respondents were admitted to bail and anticipatory bail respectively more than three years ago and for the reason the main accused was granted anticipatory bail which order has been upheld by the Supreme Court, I dismiss the two petitions.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 rk TT r PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J