ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 300/2014 u/s 406/420 of IPC registered with PS New Ashok Nagar.

(2.) The FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of complainant-Sh. Jernail Singh wherein he stated that accused Ashok Kumar cheated him of Rs.1,15,00,000/- by falsely offering to invest money in M/s Indus Towers Ltd. having its office at 7th Floor, MGF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana thereby earning a huge return as profit through investment in the above mentioned company. Ashok Kumar induced the complainant and other victims to invest in the Indus Company for tower installation. In the month of August, 2010, he came to know that he fraudulently induced him to invest in a false and fraudulent business so he asked him to return his money but each time he ditched him, thereafter, he prayed for action against him.

(3.) Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted from which it becomes clear that there is nothing on record to show wrongful gain of Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the petitioner and wrongful loss of the said amount to the complainant. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that any money was ever paid by the complainant to the petitioner. Also there is no evidence of the so-called "35 relatives of the complainant" to show that the aforesaid amount was actually entrusted by them to the complainant. Further the investigation confirms that petitioner had nothing to do with either Indus Towers Ltd. or Indus company as even the lease deeds seized during the investigation show that they are unregistered, unattested by any witness and not signed by the petitioner. Furthermore, Mayur Trading Company and Indus Company are two entirely separate and distinct entities and it is highly improbable that while intending to invest in the latter, the complainant and his so-called 35 relatives ended up transferring their money to the account of the former. Petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. He is in custody since 2nd June, 2014. As such, he be released on bail.