MITHUN BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 0 Vide this petition under Sec. 439 read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/accused Mithun Bhatnagar has sought bail in case FIR no. 193/2020 dtd. 12/11/2020 under Ss. 406/419/420/468/471/120 IPC, PS Econonic Offences Wing, (EOW).

(2.) 0 It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the FIR but was subsequently implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused Vikram Saxena, his brother-in-law. The petitioner was formally arrested on 13/3/2021, four months after the registration of the FIR, from Tihar Jail, where he was already lodged/in judicial custody in other two FIRs i.e. no. 45/2020 and 46/2020, PS Connaught Place, involving same allegations/transactions.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this bail application. Vide status report dtd. 5/1/2022, it is mentioned that the present FIR no. 193/2020, PS EOW against the petitioner came to be registered on the complaint of one Naresh Jindal s/o. Sh. Ram Kumar, r/o. H.No. 239, Karan Singh Garg Marg, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi, regarding cheating by the petitioner and other accused persons faking as DSIIDC employees. It mentions that the complainant's application for industrial plot of DSIIDC (under the relocation scheme) was rejected in the draw. Later on, on 4/6/2018, two persons/accused persons Vikram Singh and Ajay approached him, representing as the employees of DSIIDC and showed him, his original application form which was earlier rejected. They even showed their identity cards and their office/DSIIDC office in Connaught Place behind Coffee Home. They assured the complainant that he can get that industrial plot by paying an extra amount, to which he agreed. Complainant was asked to fill certain forms and also to give initially Rs. 20,000/-, towards processing fees, which he gave. Complainant has further submitted that subsequently he was asked to introduce other known persons who were interested in taking industrial plots. Accordingly, the complainant introduced six known persons to them, who also paid Rs. 20,000/- each through the complainant. The status report also gives details of further amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the complainant. It also mentions that subsequently, the accused persons were not traceable either at the given address or at their phone numbers.