Sh. Ashish Parashar v. State
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ASHISH PARASHAR .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:
Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State alongwith Inspector Anand Swarup & S.I. Varun, P.S- Hauz Khas.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
O R D E R
% 31.07.2017 1.
By the present application under Section 439 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC, the applicant seeks bail in case FIR No. 92/2017 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station - Hauz Khas.
2.
The FIR in the present case has been registered on the complaint of one Ravinder Sewak alleging that a sum of Rs.95 Lac had been debited from his account into the account of Lucky Timber & Iron Store, Shahbad, Markanda, Kurukshetra, Haryana through presentation of a cheque bearing No. 909671. During the course of investigation, the role of six accused persons was revealed.
3.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge sheet has already been filed by the investigating agency on 07.06.2017, however the accused is in custody since 04.07.2017; that the
other co-accused persons, namely Pritam Das and Sunil Sharma have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court; that the statement of Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police Chinmay Biswal demolishes the version of the prosecution that the alleged forged cheques and Government and Non-Government stamps etc. were recovered from the possession of one Chirag Chaudhary, who is stated to be in America; that the investigation qua the applicant is already over and keeping the applicant in jail would be highly prejudicial to him and would destroy his career.
4.
Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP appearing for the State submitted that the applicant is a man of past criminal antecedents and is the mastermind behind preparing the forged cheques in the present incident. She further contended that supplementary chargesheet is yet to be filed and hence, bail cannot be granted at this stage. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6.
On perusal of the record, it has emerged that the name of the accused/applicant appears to be different in the Status Report from the name mentioned in the present application. However, on careful perusal of the police file, it is found that the parentage and the address of the accused/applicant is the same. Therefore, there is no doubt that the accused/applicant is the same person as mentioned in the Status Report filed by the prosecution.
7.
The main allegations against the accused/applicant are that one laptop, printer, paper cutter, cheques of various banks and certain stamps were recovered from him. He is also stated to be the mastermind behind
preparing the forged cheques and his modus operandi was to initially procure the necessary information from the other accused persons and then tamper the information on the cheque of the same bank available with him. There are specific allegations against him that he has forged the signatures of a customer on the cheque and charged Rs.20,000/- for one cheque plus some commission after encashment of the cheque. The recovered items have been sent to FSL for expert opinion and the report is awaited.
8.
Furthermore, accused/applicant has also been arrested in the cases with same modus operandi in Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) and Patan (Gujarat) and has remained in jail in relation to the said cases for more than one year. Moreover, the investigation is still at the initial stage and supplementary chargesheet is yet to be filed in the present case. 9.
Taking the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, no ground to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage is made out. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JULY 31, 2017 gr