Bail Appl. No. 956/2009 Page 1 of 4 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No. 956/2009 Date of Decision : 21.07.2009 Shri Amit Sharma & Manoj Dubey …… Petitioners Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. Versus State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) …… Respondent Through : Mr. Pawan Bahl, Adv. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) 1. This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 420/406/120B IPC, FIR No. 01/2009 registered by Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, District South-West, New Delhi. 2. The allegations against both the accused persons are that they in collusion with each other have siphoned off a sum of Rs.49 lakhs from the account of M/s Adhar Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. registered office at 203, Sethi Bhawan, Rajendera Place, New Delhi. The modalities of siphoning of the aforesaid funds was that firstly they induced the complainant Mr. Rajeev Gupta and his other family members to pool their money in the account of the aforesaid company and thereafter the said money was transferred to the personal account of Amit Sharma and then disbursed. It is also alleged that for doing so the Bail Appl. No. 956/2009 Page 2 of 4 accused persons had obtained a fresh cheque book from the Bank of Maharastra where the account was maintained. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also has been heard. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the complaint which has been lodged by Rajeev Gupta on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR is registered is a false complaint in as much as the aforesaid amount of Rs.49 lakhs was utilized, after the withdrawal in order to pay outstanding liabilities to the creditors. The learned counsel has referred to various bank resolutions authorizing them to raise the loan to discharge the said liabilities on behalf of the company. It has been stated that after filing of the FIR the petitioners had fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer and had also given an FDR for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs apart from furnishing his own property as a security to fully protect the interest of the complainant, and therefore, their protection against the arrest deserves to be made absolute. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the entire exercise of the complainant was to take over the rein of the company and oust petitioners from the management for which the accused persons reserve their rights to take such appropriate legal action as may be permissible in law. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has disputed the few pages of the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners by urging that it has been purportedly signed by only three Directors while as the actual document is signed by five Directors. The learned counsel for the complainant has also disputed the claim of the petitioners that the Bail Appl. No. 956/2009 Page 3 of 4 aforesaid withdrawal of the amount was for the purpose of payment of of debt borrowed by the company. 6. So far as the learned APP for the State is concerned, it was urged that the petitioners have not been cooperating in the investigation and as and when they are summoned for the purpose of investigation instead of addressing the communication to the IO, they have been writing letters to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and thereby taking false and frivolous pleas to avoid their appearances before the Investigation Officer and thereby impeding the fair investigation in the matter. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners and especially the method followed by them in siphoning a huge sum of money from the bank in question, it is not a fit case where the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The factum of the petitioners having deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs or having furnished the immovable property as a security also in my view does not reduce the gravity of the allegations against them so as to persuade this Court to exercise such a discretion in favour of the petitioners. This is more so on account of the fact that there are documents, which have been referred by the learned APP which show that the petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation of the matter. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the anticipatory bail application of both the petitioners, however, any view expressed hereinbefore may not be taken as an expression on the merits of the case. The amount of money deposited by the petitioners with the Bail Appl. No. 956/2009 Page 4 of 4 Registrar General shall continue to be with this Court subject to such order as the learned Trial Court may pass. V.K. SHALI, J. JULY 21, 2009 KP