Sofar Ali v. State

$~6 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1994/2019 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1426/2019 (interim) SOFAR ALI ..... Petitioner Through Mr Jaspreet Singh Rai, Advocate with Mr Rohit Nagpal, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr Amit Gupta, APP for State.

Inspt. Mohinder Singh, P.S. Shastri Park.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 03.09.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present application, inter alia, praying that he be released on bail in FIR No. 73/2016, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at P.S. Shashtri Park Metro. 2.

The status report filed indicates that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had, in connivance with Mr Naushad Khan, committed the offence alleged. It is stated that Naushad Khan had opened an account, in the name of Blades Technology Limited which was similar to the name of the vendor, to which payments were required to be made by Honeywell International India Pvt Ltd. It is alleged that Naushad Khan was an employee of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. to which certain processes of Honeywell had been outsourced. The funds payable to Blades Technology were diverted to the fraudulent account opened in the name of a similar entity. This was allegedly done in connivance with Puneet Chaurasia who

was an employee of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd at the material time. 3.

It is pointed out that part of the said funds that were received by Naushad Khan in the account of Blades Technology Limited, which he had allegedly opened fraudulently in connivance with the petitioner, were apparently transferred to the accounts of the petitioner. It is also stated that part of the funds which were received by Naushad Khan had been used to pay the salaries of employees of the company (M/s Layton Information Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.), allegedly promoted by the petitioner. 4.

The petitioner has been in custody since 14.07.2019. It is also submitted that the charge sheet is almost ready and is being scrutinised. It appears that the investigation is complete.

5.

In view of the above, there is no necessity to retain the petitioner in judicial custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the equivalent amount. The petitioner shall ensure that his address and his whereabouts are informed to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall not leave the country without due permission of the concerned Court. The petitioner shall also not contact Naushad Khan or any of the persons accused or any of the witnesses in this case.

6.

It is clarified that in the event any further investigation reveals any role played by the petitioner, this order would not preclude the police authorities from taking the necessary steps including to seek further custody of the petitioner.

7.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is disposed of.

8.

Order dasti under the signature of Court Master. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2019/pkv