Custodial Investigation Is Required For Recovery Of Money Allegedly Obtained Through Cheating: Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail In Rs.25 Cr Embezzlement Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a man who, along with two others, was accused of deceiving a complainant into giving them more than Rs. 25 crores with the false pretense of selling a farm house through an agreement to sell.

The High Court held so while considering an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR filed under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing. The applicant's anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that “the three previous FIRs against the applicant relate to offences involving cheating and forgery in relation to property transactions. In FIR No. 187/2021, the applicant has been absconding and process under Section 82 of the CrPC had been initiated against him. In FIR No. 155/2015, the applicant was arrested on 22nd August, 2016 and chargesheet has already been filed. FIR No. 187/2021 has subsequently been quashed on the ground of settlement. Therefore, it appears that the applicant is a habitual offender who is involved in other cases of similar nature”.

The Bench therefore added that “granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would prejudice the investigation in the present FIR. The offences against the applicant are serious in nature and a huge amount of Rs.25 crores has allegedly been cheated. Custodial investigation of the applicant is required for the purposes of recovery of the original documents as well as money alleged to be cheated”.

Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Ritesh Kumar Bahri appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, an FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by Mr. J.K. Shrivastava (complainant), who alleged that three individuals, including the applicant, Mr. Keshav Ram Saini, and Mr. Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, had engaged in fraudulent activities. They had deceived the complainant into giving them more than Rs. 25 crores with the false pretense of selling a farm house through an agreement to sell. However, it was revealed that the accused persons neither owned the farm house nor were in possession of it. In line with the agreement to sell, the complainant made payments of Rs. 21.35 crores through banking channels and approximately Rs. 4 crores in cash. Despite these payments, neither a sale deed was registered in the complainant's name, nor was possession of the property transferred to him.

After considering the submission and reviewing the agreement to sell, the Bench noted that the applicant had provided assurances to the complainant, and these assurances included claims that the applicant was the rightful owner of the farm house and had possession of it.

Furthermore, the Bench found that the applicant had guaranteed that the farm house was devoid of any encumbrances. In case of any title defects, the applicant had also agreed to indemnify the complainant. Consequently, it seemed that the complainant was provided with false representations that the applicant was the absolute owner of the mentioned farm house and had its possession.

The Bench also noted that the applicant had a history of engaging in similar fraudulent activities, making him a habitual offender in cases of a similar nature.

Though the argument presented on behalf of the applicant strongly emphasized the considerable delay in filing the FIR, however, the Bench held that mere delay in filing the FIR, by itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail to the applicant.

The Bench additionally highlighted that despite the interim protection granted by this court, the applicant failed to fully cooperate with the investigating agency.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would hamper the investigation in the ongoing FIR, since the charges against the applicant were of a grave nature, involving an alleged embezzlement of a substantial sum of Rs.25 crores, and custodial interrogation of the applicant was deemed necessary for the retrieval of the original documents and the purportedly misappropriated funds.

Consequently, the interim protection that had been granted to the applicant was withdrawn, and the anticipatory bail application, was dismissed.

Cause Title: Trilok Chand Chaudhary v. State [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7586]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment