RAMNEEK SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No. 306/2016 under Section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Dwarka, Delhi.

(2.) The instant complaint has been lodged at the instance of one Amit Gupta, owner of BL Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Dwarka against the petitioner, his mother and father. It is alleged in the complaint that on 24.05.2016 at around 5.30 PM, Mandeep Kaur, (mother of the petitioner herein) came to his shop and purchased jewelleries worth Rs.33,55,400/- and issued two post dated cheques bearing Nos. 000011 dated 28.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.14 lacs and Cheque No.000013 dated 30.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.10 lacs. The balance amount of Rs.9,55,000/- was assured to be paid within 2-3 hours. When nobody turned up for payment of the balance amount, the complainant filed a police complaint on 27.05.2016, which later on registered as FIR under Section 406/34 of IPC. Since the post dated cheques issued by Mandeep Kaur were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, the notice dated 04.06.2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was served upon the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was declined vide order dated 14.07.2016. However, Mandeep Kaur had surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka, Delhi on 22.07.2016 and since then, she is in judicial custody and on the other hand, the father of the petitioner has moved an application for surrender-cumbail before the concerned Court. It is informed that the NBWs have been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.2016. Now the petitioner has preferred the instant bail application before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case just to teach a lesson to main accused and to spoil the life and career of the petitioner. It is further contended that in fact the petitioner was present in his Garment Shop alongwith three employees, since 1 PM to 8.30 PM and remained present at Cash Counter of the shop. To support his contention, the petitioner has also filed on record the affidavit of three employees. It is further informed that in fact the car was driven by the Driver and not by the petitioner. The petitioner has nothing to do with the present case and all the allegations made in the complaint are false and fabricated.