DEEPAK DHALLA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.234/2016, registered at Police Station- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by one Pratik Bais, who is the Director of Ferry Flying Aviation, in the Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, wherein it was stated that he had booked an Air Ambulance on behalf of one Ku. Rishika Singh and an amount of Rs.640000/- was deposited, wherein the air ambulance was to be sent on 11.08.2016, however, the air ambulance did not reach to the Raipur on the date, therefore, he had returned the amount of Rs.640000/- to Rishika Singh. Subsequently, it is stated by the complainant that on different dates certain amounts were returned by Wisler Aviation and amount of Rs.82000/- remained, which the directors of the company did not return and the Amit Dhalla was one of the Directors along with Amit Sharma, therefore, the FIR was lodged against Amit Sharma and Amit Dhalla. After the registration of the FIR and after investigation, it was revealed that Deepak Dhalla, who is brother of the Amit Dhalla, in connivance with Amit Dhalla has committed the offence. Subsequently, Deepak Dhalla was arrested on 23.05.2017 at Delhi and Transit Bail was sought for by the Investigation Officer of Azad Chowk Police Station, Raipur and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted the Transit Bail to the applicant with a direction to appear before the Court of JMFC on 07.06.2017 and to deposit an amount of Rs.1 Lakh, each by Amit Sharma and Deepak Dhalla. Thereafter, when the Anticipatory Bail was applied for before the Sessions Court, Raipur, which was rejected. Hence this application is filed for Anticipatory Bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order of the Sessions Court would reveal that that the statement made in the F.I.R. and the statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was completely changed and it would be evident from the rejection order and it is further submitted that the allegation would show that the entire nature of transaction was a commercial transaction in between the parties. He would further submit that the endorsement in the order of the Sessions Court would show that the Anticipatory Bail was filed before the Sessions Judge on 07.06.2017, meaning thereby the applicant presented himself before the Court along with his Advocate, however, the same was rejected, and, one of the co-accused Amit Sharma, who surrendered before the JMFC was taken into custody and was released on bail subsequently. Therefore, the applicant has not fled away with the jurisdiction of the Court and their right to apply for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and having been rejected they have filed this application. He would further submit that since the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi would show that the entire allegation is for an amount of Rs.77000/- and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh has already been deposited, therefore, this would show the intention of the applicant. He would further submit that no further custodial interrogation is required, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.