VISHAL RAMESHBHAI GANDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.72 dated 15.05.2020 registered under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, at Police Station Sector-37, District Gurugram.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner are that the complainant intended to procure a good quality of face masks for the business purpose on account of the prevalent Covid-19 situation. For that purpose she came in to contact with the present petitioner. The petitioner agreed to ensure the supply of the face masks to the complainant. The deal was agreed. Thereafter, the petitioner asked the complainant to meet one Ashish Kumar and to inspect the stock of the face masks at Delhi at the house of one Rajat Deep. To instill confidence in the complainant, a stock of face masks was shown to the complainant at the house of Rajat Deep. On the stock having been verified by the complainant, the petitioner issued the bill from his own firm M/s. Rhythm Divine Healthcare. The bill having been raised by the present petitioner, the amount was deposited by the complainant in the account of the petitioner. Out of the total payments, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid in the personal account of the petitioner, whereas an amount of Rs. 42,60,000/-was deposited in the account of his firm. However, subsequently the goods were not supplied to the complainant by the petitioner and his firm. Therefore, the complainant demanded her money back. But, even that was not done by the petitioner. As a result, the present FIR has been registered by the complainant.

(3.) One more fact which has happened during the interregnum is that the police had arrested the petitioner in connection with this case. However, at the time when police had sought remand of the petitioner, the Magistrate realized that the arresting officer had not complied with the conditions laid down in Section 41(l)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. for arresting an accused. No valid reasons were recorded by the arresting officer. Hence, the arrest of the petitioner was set aside and he was ordered to be released.