RAJEEV SURI Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DLEHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.1052/2020 under Sec. 420 IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC. Despite the alleged offence having been committed in 2018 and the complainant having issued a legal notice on 5/3/2019, the FIR was lodged in December, 2020 after a delay of more than 20 months. Complainant is a resident of UK and he entered into a transaction with one Anil, Director of Global Ent. Corporation (in short „Global Ent. Ÿ) based in New York, USA and the goods which were funded were allegedly transferred from South Africa to Netherlands however, to create a cause of action in India, it is alleged that the complainant met the petitioner in Delhi at the latter's residence at Rajouri Garden where the complainant was induced to invest. No recourse to civil proceedings for recovery of money has been taken and to twist the arm of the petitioner, the FIR in question has been lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the when the complainant issued the legal notice, the alleged main accused i.e. Anil offered to come to India on 10/3/2019 to sort out the matters however, the complainant vide his email dtd. 11/3/2019 stated that he could not come to India. Now during the course of arguments, the complainant without any basis takes the plea that the petitioner impersonated as Anil on the basis of one email which was sent by Anil from Thailand at the time when the petitioner was also at Thailand ignoring that all other emails of Anil were generated from USA when the petitioner was in India. The petitioner is at best a facilitator between the complainant and Anil. Further the best case of the complainant is that the petitioner was a guarantor, even than an offence under Sec. 420 IPC is not made out. In any case the petitioner has joined the investigation nine times prior to the filing of this petition and eight times after filing of the petition. The petitioner Ÿs passport is lying seized with the Investigating Officer and he has always made himself available for the investigation. Further the mobile phone and the laptop of the petitioner have also been seized and thus no recoveries are required to be made from the petitioner. Hence anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.