BAIL APPLN./1186/2017 of NIKESH GUPTA Vs STATE OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1186/2017

NIKESH GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:Ms.Meenakshi Arora, Sr.Advocate withMr.Sachin Dev Sharma and Mr.RakeshSharma, AdvocatesMr.Sachin Dev Sharma and Mr.RakeshSharma, Advocates

versus

STATE OF DELHI..... RespondentThrough:Mr.Ashish Dutta, APPMr.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate withMr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for thecomplainantThrough:Mr.Ashish Dutta, APPMr.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate withMr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for thecomplainant

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%17.08.2017

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connectionwith FIR No.62/2017 dated 10.02.2017 (P.S.Vasant Kunj South) institutedfor the offence under Section 409 IPC.

The petitioner is alleged to have introduced one Prakash Gupta, co-accused to the complainant for the purposes of facilitating him in selling 6kgs of gold bars which were in his possession. Aforesaid Prakash Guptacollected the gold bars from the complainant for selling the same and laterinformed the complainant that he had sold it and has accepted money in cashfrom the purchaser, which shall be paid to the complainant. Before theamount in cash could be returned to the complainant, aforesaid Prakash

Gupta informed the complainant that he has been robbed of all the moneywhich he was carrying.

From the records, it appears that the gold bars were entrusted toPrakash Gupta and not to the petitioner. But, in the FIR, the complainanthas alleged that when the aforesaid fact of robbery was communicated to thepetitioner, he is said to have told him that Prakash Gupta was in possessionof his money also, which too has been robbed.

There appears to be some connection between the petitioner and co-accused Prakash Gupta.

Ms.Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, while canvassing thecase of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that there is noentrustment to the petitioner and that even the source of procurement of goldby the complainant has not been explained. She has further submitted thatthe occurrence leading to the registration of this case took place sometimeson 07.12.2016 but the complaint regarding the same was lodged on07.01.2017. The formal FIR was drawn up only on 13.02.2017. There is noexplanation with respect to such delay.

The other limb of argument of Ms.Meenakshi Arora is that despite thepetitioner having played limited role of introducing co-accused PrakashGupta to the complainant, he has been participating in the investigation andcustodial interrogation, that also for the purposes of recovery of the gold ormoney, ought not to be the purpose of grant or rejection of bail.

Mr.Vijay Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the complainanthowever has drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 24.07.2017passedinBailApplicationNo.1230/2017wherebytheprayerforanticipatory bail of co-accused Prakash Gupta has been rejected.He has

further submitted that it was only on the instruction of the petitioner that thegold bars were entrusted to Prakash Gupta, the co-accused.He furthersubmits that the petitioner had introduced Prakash Gupta to the complainantas his partner/business associate.

Taking into consideration the fact that the anticipatory bail of co-accused has been rejected on 24.07.2017, this Court is not inclined toexercise its jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.However, this shall not be construed as rendition of any opinion on themerits of the case, in the event of the petitioner applying for regular bail.

The anticipatory bail application is thus dismissed with the aforesaidobservations.

Dasti.

AUGUST 17, 2017k

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.