BAIL APPLN./1580/2017 of SUNIL JADHAV Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1580/2017 & Crl. M.A. no. 13044/2017SUNIL JADHAV..... PetitionerSUNIL JADHAV..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.ManuSharma,Mr.LakshayDhamija and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advs.Dhamija and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr. Amit Gupta, APP with SI AmitDutt, P.S. Lajpat Nagar for the StateMr. Tarun Goomber and Mr. NitishKumar Singh, Advs. for complainantThroughMr. Amit Gupta, APP with SI AmitDutt, P.S. Lajpat Nagar for the StateMr. Tarun Goomber and Mr. NitishKumar Singh, Advs. for complainant

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%17.08.2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the FIR,petitioner used to melt the gold jewellery given by the complainant to himand certify its purity.On the basis of such certification, gold used to bepurchased by the co-accused Mahendra Patel of M/s. Akshardham JewellersPvt. Ltd. The allegations are that petitioner used to make the gold bars bymelting the jewellery in such way that impure gold formed the outer layer,whereas, the pure gold would be in the inner portion of the gold bar. On thebasis of such certification made by the petitioner, M/s. AkshardhamJewellers Pvt. Ltd. purchased gold for lesser rate than its actual value,

thereby resulting in financial loss to the complainant. It is submitted thatpetitioner did not receive any payment from the complainant nor did hereceive any money from the co-accused.

Learned APP, who is assisted by the learned counsel for thecomplainant, submits that petitioner, by such certification, has causedfinancial losses to the petitioner and undue financial gain to the co-accused,being in conspiracy with him, inasmuch as, had received cut from thecheated amount. Petitioner has purchased the property bearing No. M-15,Kasturba Niketan Complex, Lajpat Nagar – II, New Delhi – 110024 fromthe cheated amount.

Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasnextcontendedthatcomplainant has already settled the matter with the co-accused. It is furthersubmitted that no material has been collected by the Investigating Officerduring the investigation, to support the contention that petitioner hadreceived any amount from the co-accused. It is further submitted that theproperty, which, as per the Investigating Officer was purchased in the year2016, was in fact purchased in the year 2009. Photocopies of the documentspertaining to sale transactions in favour of the petitioner in respect of theaforesaid property have been placed on record. It is further submitted that

copies of these documents will be provided to the Investigating Officer. In

the year 2016, petitioner had simply transferred the property in the name ofhis wife.Petitioner has already cooperated in the investigation and hasappeared before the Investigating Officer on five occasions.

Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances as detailedabove, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released onanticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of`50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount

to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHOconcerned.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneousapplication is disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.

AUGUST 17, 2017rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.