SOMNATH BOBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise out of applications moved for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), in the context of first information report (FIR) no.10/2014 of police station Economic Offences Wing (C&R) of Delhi Police ("EOW", for short) involving offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), all moved in Oct. / Nov., 2014, applicants being Somnath Bobal (Bail Application no.2371/2014), Hemant Kumar Bobal (Bail Application no.2372/2014), Sangeeta Bobal (Bail Application no.2478/2014), Naresh Kumar (Bail Application no.2479/2014), Vishal Bobal (Bail Application no. 2480/2014), Raja Bobal (Bail Application no.2481/2014), Suman Bobal (Bail Application no.2482/2014), Sachin Taneja (Bail Application no.2484/2014), Yugal Kishore (Bail Application no.2485/2014), Priya Taneja (Bail Application no.2486/2014) and Sarika (Bail Application no.2536/2014), concededly close relatives or associates to each other, each an accused person whose complicity is the subject matter of investigation.

(2.) These applications were disposed of by a learned single judge earlier by a common order passed on 16.01.2015, inter alia, on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.01.2015 that had been executed by the applicants (collectively described in the MOU as the "first party") on one hand and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (described in the MOU as the "second party") on whose behalf the complaint (FIR) was lodged with EOW, on the other, in the wake of opportunity granted by the court by various adjournments to allow amicable resolution of the dispute. The applicants, having been granted the relief of anticipatory bail in the event of they being arrested, were obliged under the MOU to deposit with the Dhanlaxmi Bank (the complainant) the money that had been received by each of them in terms of the transactions which are the subject matter of the dispute conditional, of course, upon the complainant returning their respective properties (jewellery articles) which had been pledged. These proceedings, however, came to be revived on applications (Crl. M.A. 1451/2015, 1443/2015, 1453/2015, 1440/2015, 1441/2015, 1445/2015, 1442/2015, 1439/2015, 1457/2015, 1446/2015 and 1456/2015) being moved by the accused persons seeking modification / clarification of the order dated 16.01.2015 primarily by a direction to the investigating officer to restore all the pledged jewellery to the applicants and for delay in payment of the money by the applicants to the complainant to be condoned. Later, the complainant also moved (Crl. M.A. 1845/2015, 1832/2015, 1848/2015, 1837/2015, 1839/2015, 1834/2015, 1843/2015, 1852/2015, 1841/2015, 1828/2015 and 1855/2015) praying for cancellation of the bail order granted on 16.01.2015 alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the MOU.

(3.) All the above mentioned applications, along with some further applications moved in due course of the proceedings that followed, eventually came up for consideration before the court on 27.09.2016 when the following order was passed :-