RAKESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order of 22nd September, 2014 petitioner has been declined bail in FIR No. 51/2013 under Section 420/120B/467/408/468/409/471 IPC registered at Police Station Economic Office Wing, Delhi. Interim bail granted to petitioner vide order of 22nd August, 2014 was extended from time to time till passing of the impugned order and the purpose to grant interim bail was to facilitate selling of properties by the petitioner so that the amount of Rs. 9.66 crores could be deposited by petitioner.

(2.) Quashing of the impugned order is sought by learned senior counsel for petitioner on the ground that after grant of interim bail to petitioner, he had advertised in various newspapers, but the time was too short to enable him to sell his properties and so refusal of trial court to extend interim bail of petitioner was unjustified. It was pointed out by learned senior counsel for petitioner that impugned order does not deny bail to petitioner on merits and the undertaking of petitioner to deposit the amount in question was obtained while he was in custody. To contend so, attention of this Court is drawn to copy of petitioner's affidavit of 20th August, 2014 (Annexure P-7) and it was submitted that this affidavit was got attested in July. Reliance was placed upon decision in Shashi Kapoor and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2008 Cri L.J.1261 to submit that such a settlement has to be taken with a little pinch of salt and petitioner's bail application ought to have been heard on merits. Reliance was placed upon a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Sandeep Chaudhary and Anr. v. State and Ors., 2007 (94) DRJ 604 to submit that the bail had to be heard on merits and in Sandeep Chaudhary (supra) interim protection was extended for a period of two weeks to enable petitioner to seek bail on merits. Thus, quashing of impugned order is sought with direction to trial court to hear the petitioner's bail application on merits.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State as well as learned counsel for complainant has drawn the attention of this Court to the trial court's orders of 26th August, 2014 and 29th August, 2014 to point out that petitioner had no bonafide intention to sell any of the properties and petitioner is enjoying interim bail without any bonafide intention to pay up the cheated amount. It was submitted that there is no objection of hearing of petitioner's bail application on merits but to show his bonafides petitioner be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4.5 crores before it is done.