Proceedings under CrPC pursuant to registration of FIR are not for purpose of recovery of money allegedly cheated from complainant: Delhi HC grants pre-arrest bail to man accused of cheating in solar panel business
Justice Amit Mahajan [01-07-2024]
Read Order: RAMESH YADAV v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 3226/2023]
LE Correspondent
New Delhi, July 12, 2024: The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a complainant in a solar panel business deal. The case was registered under FIR No. 722/2021 at Samaipur Badli police station.
“The only reason given by the prosecution seeking custodial interrogation of the applicant is that the alleged cheated amount is yet to be recovered. It is settled law that the proceedings under the CrPC pursuant to the registration of the FIR are not meant for the purpose of recovery of money allegedly cheated from the complainant,” a Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan said.
According to the complaint, Ramesh Yadav and his wife presented themselves as directors of M/s Tashta Aliments Private Ltd. and lured Sanjay Aggarwal into investing Rs. 20 lakh in their company, promising high returns and good profit margins through their alleged contacts with Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. However, Aggarwal later discovered that the accused had no connection with Reliance and that the documents provided by them were not genuine.
Yadav's counsel argued that the complainant's facts were incorrect and that Yadav himself was trapped by one Krishna Kumar Pandey, who introduced himself as a commission agent with connections to Reliance. Yadav claimed that he had transferred the money received from Aggarwal to Pandey and his relatives, believing in the legitimacy of the contract. The prosecution opposed the bail application, stating that Yadav had orchestrated the financial fraud in connivance with other accused.
However, the High Court observed that the purpose of custodial interrogation is to aid the investigation and not to compel the accused to return the money. The court noted that Yadav had joined the investigation on multiple occasions and that the evidence in the case appeared to be documentary, which was already in the possession of the prosecution.
Granting pre-arrest bail to Yadav, the court directed him to furnish a personal bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount and imposed several conditions, including not leaving the country without the permission of the trial court and cooperating with further investigation. The court clarified that the observations made in the order were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment