Full Text
BAIL APPLN. 584/2016
SIMRAN GUPTA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Paul and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP Mr. Arvind Jain and Mr. Dharmender Sehrawat, Advocate for R-2
MANOKAMNA GUPTA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Paul and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP Mr. Arvind Jain and Mr. Dharmender Sehrawat, Advocate for R-2
05.04.2016
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose oftwo bail applications bearing No.584/2016 and 588/2016 as both the applications have been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0776/2016 u/s 408/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPG registered with Police Station Preet Vihar. 2016:DHC:8236
2. Petitioners are the sister and mother of Jitesh Gupta, who was working as accountant with the complainant. The allegations levelled against the petitioners and Jitesh Gupta is that the complainant Arvind Jain was running his business ofhome furnishing under the name and style of Intertia International. Jitesh Gupta was employed as an accountant inthe said firm. Complainant was having full faith on him and entrusted all the cheque books for daily bank transactions in regard to his business. Jitesh Gupta also used to get the signatures on the cheques from the complainant for the purpose of business of the complainant and the complainant having faith and trust on him used to sign the cheques inquestion. On 18^^ September, 2015, Mr.Babbar Khan, proprietor of Prince Embroidery visited the office of the complainant and informed him that he has not received the payment of Rs.l lac. The complainant informed him that the payment has already been debited from his account vide two cheques' of Rs.50,000/- each but the bank statement of Babbar Khan did not reflect the credit of the said amount. Inquiry was made by the ^ complainant from Jitesh Gupta, who sought one day's time and thereafter, the complainant came to know that the TDS of the said amount has been deposited later on. The complainant then got suspicious on the activities of Jitesh Gupta and contacted his bank at Panipat and then it transpired that Jitesh Gupta, in a pre-planned manner, dishonestly and fraudulently transferred a total sum of Rs.2,[5] 8,00,000/- in fake bank accounts. The present petitioners being the sister and mother of Jitesh conspired with him for opening the bank accounts in the fake name ofthe proprietorship concern ofthe complainant and other concerns.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is in thebusiness of opening fake accounts and use his employees and their family members to keep save the amount to avoid the burden of income tax and action of other revenue authorities. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the anticipatory bail application ofthe petitioners.
4. Counsel submits that on 13^"^ January, 2016, various directions were given to the parties. The petitioners were asked to join investigation on fifteen dates pursuant thereto the petitioners did join investigation on three occasions and thereafter gave an application before the Courtpointing out the improper investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer. Much emphasis was laid on the order dated 25'^ January, 2016 for submitting that directions were given to the Investigating Officer to keep the amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- lying in the freezed account of the petitioner in FDR and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- out of that amount to the petitioner for their livelihood till one of the petitioners gets salary. However, neither the amount was kept in FDR nor Rs.30,000/- was given to the petitioner. Due to suppression of this order, the bail application was dismissed on 8^^ March, 2016. The petitioners are no longer required for the purpose of investigation and in any case they are ready and willing to join the same. As such, they be granted protection.
5. The application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by the counsel for the complainant and reference was made to the status report wherein following facts were revealed during the course ofinvestigation:-
(i) Accused person Jitesh in connivance with Manokarnna
Gupta and Simran Gupta opened fake account in ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi with the same name as already opened by complainant company, i.e.. Inertia International and transferred huge amount in crores through cheques.
(ii) All the cheques credited in fake account by accused persons issued in the name of Complainant Arvind Jain Company account by PNB, Panipat Branch.
(iii) Accused persons in connivance with each other opened other fake accounts namely (a) PRINCE EMBROIDERY with Kotak Mahindra, Preet Vihar (b) BOMBAY BEADS with ICICI, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi (c) TRADE WIND SERVICES with ICICI, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi and all the accounts were already opened in the name of Complainant Supplier.
(iv) Accused persons created number of PAN cards of all the above mentioned four (4) companies. Partnership Deeds, Letter heads.
(v) The NBW of accused Jitesh Kumar Gupta has been obtained from the Hon'ble Court of Sh. S.P.S. Later on 23/12/15 andNDOH is fixed for 29.01.16.
6. Learned APP further referred to the various documents collected during the course of investigation which reflected that fake accounts were opened in the name ofInertia International and Prince Embroidery. Accused Jitesh Gupta along with the present petitioners opened several bank accounts and transferred complainant's huge money in crores to all the accounts by making forged signatures on cheque of complainant's account. Separate interrogation was made from the accused persons as well as the complainant which was videographed and the same revealed that:-. (i) During course of investigation/interrogation, on 18.01.16, accused Simran revealed that she never opened any account in the name of any company and revealed that all the fake accounts were opened by Jitesh.
(ii) During interrogation on 18.01.16, accused Jitesh admitted that he opened the fake account and gave documents to Bank staff.
(iii) During interrogation on 20.01.16, accused Jitesh admitted that the cheques which were credited in fake account of ICICI belongs to Complainant Arvind Jain. Further, he admitted that companies were never opened on address F-39A, Gali No.4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi only address was used. He further admitted that the cheques which were credited into fake account of PRINCE EMBROIDERY alsobelong to complainant Arvind Jain's account.
(iv) During interrogation on 20.01.16, accused Manokamna
(v) The employee of ICICI bank namely Preeti Singh was also examined in the present case, who opened the account of Inertia International. She told that Jitesh, his mother- Manokamna Gupta and sister-Simran Gupta applied for openingofaccount and at the time ofopening the account when she visited at H.No.F-39A, Gali No.4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi then all accused persons were present and they applied for one more account in the name of Anilia Fashion. She further told that at the time of opening Inertia International fake account, Jitesh, his mother and Sister used stamp ofInertia International which they put on documents ofBank before signing them.
7. Learned APP further submits that although the petitioner joined investigation but did not co-operated in the same, they neither gave proper details of their saving bank accounts except those bank accounts which have already been fireezed nor gave proper information for investigation of the case. Rather threat was given to the Investigating Officer of the case that a false complaint will be lodged against him, as such, DD Entry vide DD No. 16A dated 22"'' January, 2016 was registered at Police Station Preet Vihar. Custodial interrogation ofthe petitioners is required due to following reasons
(i) Several fake accounts were created by Jitesh and the cheques by which cash was credited belongs to complainant Arvind Jain.
(ii) Not a single company was opened at F-39A, Gali No.4,
(iii) On a single address four companies has been opened.
(iv) Co-accused have different versions during interrogation clearly shows that at the time of opening fake accounts they have full knowledge aboutpurpose ofcheating.
(v) There is very much possibility that accused persons opened various unknown accounts which need to be discovered.
8. During the course ofarguments, the opening ofthe various fake bank accounts in the name of the petitioners is not even disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. The only plea taken is that the same was done by the complainant in order to avoid payment of tax. The case is at its threshold. As per the complainant, the amount involved is Rs.2,58,00,000/- out of which only Rs.1,20,00,000/- has so far been freezed. The balance amount remains to be recovered. Jitesh is avoiding the process of law. The factum of opening the bank account partnership deed etc. are not disputed by the petitioner. As regards th non-compliance of the order dated 25 January, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which direction was given to the Investigating Officer of the case to keep the amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- in FDR and to pay Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner, that I is a dereliction ofduty on the part ofthe Investigating Officer ofthe case but that itself cannot be made aground to grant relief as prayed by the petitioner.
9. Keeping inview the seriousness and gravity ofoffence, it isnot a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
10. As such, the bail applications are dismissed.
SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 05, 2016/..