SUNIL KUMAR MARWAHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred on a case under Sections 420/490/471/120B IPC, being registered against the Applicant resulting in a nonbailable warrant of arrest being issued for his apprehension. Without delving much into the details of the case, it will be sufficient to note that during the course of the investigation by the Namchi Police, on a complaint lodged by one Sunil Jaiswal for having been cheated by one Ayush Kapoor and another Sanjiv Nagar of a sum of Rs.2.5 crores, it was found that the Applicant/Petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence giving rise to commencement of the process against the Applicant/Petitioner.

(2.) It appears that the Applicant/Petitioner had sought for bail in anticipation of arrest from the Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, which had been rejected on the grounds as stated in the Order dated 20.10.2012 passed by it. It is for this reason the Applicant/Petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Pressing the application, Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned Advocate submitted that the applicant is a business man directly involved in the day to day affairs of his business in the name and style of M/s Aeroma Chemicals Private Ltd., M/s Maxtone Petrochemicals and M/s Pinacle Realtors. It is further submitted that although the Applicant/Petitioner had been a partner in M/S Maiden Travels, the Company involved in the commission of the offence, he had severed all connections with it right from 15.07.2009 and a declaration duly notarised as required under the law had been issued by him, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P2 to the application. On and from that date he had nothing to do with M/s Maiden Travels which would be further confirmed by the statement of accounts of the Deutsche Bank pertaining to the company filed as Annexure P3 for the period 01.01.2010 to 13.10.2012. As per him, the statement of accounts would clearly indicate that it is rather the two persons named in the FIR who were frequently transacting in that account. These are the primary submissions made in support of the application on the facts. It is submitted that in law the prosecution has not been able to make out sufficient grounds for placing the Applicant/Petitioner in custody of the Police and, therefore, entitled to bail in anticipation under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 1973.