Jai Pal Singh v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$-12& 13 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1859/20 16 PARAMJIT MANN Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with MR. B B Pradhan, Advocate versus STATE Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok K Garg, APP for the State with 10 SI Sandeep Kumar, DIR/NDD Mr. RAndhir La! and Ms. Amrita Chatterjee, Advocates for complainant + BAIL APPLN. 1927/2016 JAI PAL SINGH Represented by:

Petitioner Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with MR. B B Pradhan, Advocate .

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok K Garg, APP for the State with JO SI Sandeep Kumar, DIR/NDD

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 27.01.2017 versus By the present petitions, petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.84/2016 under Section 420/468/471/506 IPC PS Chankya Puri pursuant to the complaint of Satpal Fotra. Later on during the course of investigation By:AMULYA

Section 467 & 120B IPC were also added.

In the complaint it was alleged that the complainant was running a shop of gold and diamond jewellery at Ashok Hotel for the last 30 years and the petitioner visited his shop 5 to 6 times and introduced herself as a respected •person as she is wife of Retired Regional Head of MMTC. Petitioner was also engaged in business of selling gold and diamond jewellery at Sub-Mall, Sector 27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Since the parties had a number of transactions over the years, gold items were given on credit and consignment basis during the years 20 13-15. In lieu of the purchases made from the shop of complainant, petitioner issued cheques bearing no. 010322 and 010335 for a sum of Z21.25 lacs and 19 lacs respectively which on presentation were returned back dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Two more cheques given by the petitioner were dishonoured. The petitioner had given original documents of her farm house at Noida which she later on took back. It is thus alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainant. As per learned counsel for the complainant, total amount cheated is 1,39,00,000/- (approx) however, in FIR it is mentioned as Z84 lacs (approx).

During the course of present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already paid 16 lacs and pursuant to an undertaking given before this court on November 29, 2016, he has also deposited a sum of Z54 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court.

Considering the fact that a sum of 70 lacs (approx) has either been handed over or deposited by the petitioner, this court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that in the event of

(0 this arrest, petitioner be released on bail on his furnishihg personal bail bond in the sum of 25,000I- with one surety in the like amount and further subject to the condition that he will join the investigation as and when directed and he will not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.

The amount lying deposited with the Registrar General of this court be kept in the form of FDR which shall be released subject to final outcome of the trial or in case parties settle the matter priorthereto. Petition is disposed of.

Order dasti.

Alku-kMUKTA GUPTA, J.

JANUARY 27, 2017 'sm'

o