Bail Appln. 1044/2010 Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: December 6, 2010 Date of Order: December 10, 2010 + Bail. Appln. No.1044/2010 % 10.12.2010 Joji Sebastin & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State ...Respondents Counsels: Mr. Suhail Dutt and Mr. Azhar Alam for petitioners. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER 1. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioners, employee of ITI Financial Service Limited are that they had duped the complainant and cheated the complainant. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the complainant entered into an agreement with ITI Investors Services Limited for investment in trading business of commodities. The trading in commodities is like trading in shares and the margin money is always kept in the accounts and instructions are given to the company to invest the amount in commodities. With rise and fall in the price of commodities, profit or loss to the account holder is there. The complainant submitted that he had been receiving SMS messages from applicants that he was earning profits and when he ultimately checked his account, he found that his account stood depleted. Bail Appln. 1044/2010 Page 2 Of 2 He submits that he was not sent statement of account and the trading was done without his consent. The complainant in this case is Mr. Vipul Goel. He and his family members including his wife, mother etc had opened trading accounts and similar complaint is in respect of his family members. 3. A perusal of documents would show that from these trading accounts money was withdrawn by the complainant and his family members from time to time by cheques. The plea taken by the complainant that he was not furnished statement of account, in my view, is not tenable since withdrawals could not have been done without knowing the balance in the account. The other plea urged by the complainant that the trading was done without his consent again seems to be doubtful since he was receiving SMS messages about the trading from his account. It was his obligation to check the account from time to time. He had opened an email ID with the investment company and as per contract entered into by complainant with the investment company, he was supposed to up-date himself about his trading through email and if there was any discrepancy he was supposed to inform the company within 24 hours. 4. Considering these aspects, in my opinion, it is not a case where investigation needs arresting of the petitioners/accused persons for custodial interrogation. 5. Resultantly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer/SHO concerned, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and shall furnish all electronic and non-electronic records, as and when asked by the IO. December 10, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd