High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail in FIR registered at Police Station Karol Bagh under Section 420 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant is a jeweller by profession and has a jewellery showroom in Karol Bagh by the name of M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers which he runs with his two brothers. The Petitioner herein and her family are the customers of the complainant, and they have a relationship with the Complainant which goes back thirty years, with the Petitioner and her family regularly purchasing jewellery from the Complainant. In March 2015, the Petitioner informed the Complainant about a big project which she wanted to discuss in private. The Complainant was induced into accepting the order worth more than one crore rupees without taking any advance and agreed to give 5% commission to the Petitioner and her family. The Complainant accordingly purchased the gold and diamonds required for the jewellery, and handed over the same on 01.06.2015 to the Petitioner and her family at their home. The Petitioner informed the Complainant that he would get the money by 3rd June, 2015. When the Complainant later tried to contact the Petitioner on her phone, it was switched off. The Complainant then visited the house of the Petitioner where the family of the Petitioner allegedly fraudulently told him that the Petitioner had ran away with the jewellery.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He contended that the family of the Petitioner and the Complainant were known to each other and that the Complainant was aware of the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and her husband, and therefore, the Complainant in collusion with the husband of the Petitioner has concocted the story of cheating and fraud. He has argued that despite the FIR naming the Petitioner’s husband, son and daughters multiple times, the prosecution has exonerated them and this is indicative of the conspiracy that has been launched by the Petitioner’s husband and the Complainant to falsely implicate the Petitioner.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Petitioner has played a crucial role in the commission of the offences alleged in the instant FIR. She submitted that the investigation is not complete yet and the Petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating officers. She stated that the money that has been fraudulently procured has been deposited in bank accounts situated in Dubai and that the details of the same are yet to be revealed. It was argued that the Petitioner was also impersonating the sister of the King of Brunei and that the mobile phone/SIM card used by the Petitioner for impersonation are yet to be recovered.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that a perusal of the chargesheet on record reveals that the Petitioner has not been cooperative in the investigation. Further voice recordings have revealed that the Petitioner was knee-deep in the conspiracy to cheat the Complainant and misappropriate the jewellery to keep the money all for themselves. Court stated that the Supreme Court has time and again laid down the parameters that must be taken into account by a Court while considering an application seeking grant of bail. The material on record in the instant case does disclose that the Petitioner played a crucial role in the commission of the alleged offence and had masterminded the plan to cheat the Complainant out of more than two crores of rupees. Court found that the Petitioner has also been uncooperative during the investigation, and has also resorted to levelling allegations against the Complainant and her family members, including her husband and her mother. Court stated that there is weight in the submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner that even if she is convicted, the Petitioner would be subjected to imprisonment for a maximum of seven years, out of which she has already spent two years in custody. Even after four years, investigation has not been completed.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the Petitioner cannot be kept endlessly behind bars. When right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it can be presumed that one the facets would also be that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely. The Petitioner has already spent more than one-fourth of the maximum period of imprisonment in custody. There is no allegation that the petitioner has cheated anybody else. The apprehension that the Petitioner will flee from justice can be dissipated by ensuring that appropriate conditions are imposed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Nancy Gill v. State
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 2557/2018
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments