SUMIT MEHTA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner accused is claiming anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR no. 104/2012 on 22.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC on the basis of the complaint made against him by the complainant.

(2.) THE case has been registered against four persons including the petitioner herein at the behest of the complainant Harman Jaspal on the allegations that in the year 2003 the complainant and the accused petitioner had agreed to invest money together for running a petrol pump in partnership with co-accused Kirpal Singh, who was already running the same in the name of M/s Akaash Auto Center. The complainant claimed to have invested a sum of two crores of rupees in the said Firm in the year 2003. As per the further allegations Kirpal Singh had at that time executed some documents showing that he was authorising the complainant and petitioner to run the petrol pump. However, formally the names of the petitioner and the complainant could not be entered in the records of Indian Oil Corporation, which had allotted the petrol pump to the said Firm of accused Kirpal Singh, since at that time that was not permissible under the guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation. However, in the year 2009 introduction of new partners for the running of existing petrol pumps was made permissible and as per the allegations in the FIR the petitioner took all documents executed by Kirpal Singh in the year 2003 from the complainant for getting their names entered in the records of Indian Oil Corporation as the partners to the extent of 25%. Balance 75% interest in the petrol pump was to remain with Kirpal Singh. However, the petitioner conspired with Kirpal Singh and got fresh documents executed from him and by virtue of those fabricated documents he exclusively became 25% partner in the petrol pump business and the complainant was completely removed from the scene and he was not even returned back the investment made by him. That led to the lodging of a complaint at Naib Sarai police station by the complainant but no FIR was registered and then the complainant approached the EOW Cell which however registered an FIR on 22.08.2012 for the already noted offences. Apprehending his arrest the petitioner filed the present application for anticipatory bail after failing to get that relief from the Sessions Court.

(3.) OPPOSING this bail application the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned senior counsel for the complainant had submitted that arrest of the petitioner is necessary for his custodial interrogation for recovery of the original documents which accused Kirpal Singh had executed in favour of the petitioner and the complainant in the year 2003 as also for the recovery of the money invested by the complainant for running the petrol pump which was during those days being run by accused Kirpal Singh's Firm. It was however submitted that major portion of the complainant's investment was in cash and source of that investment was also being investigated.