Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Santosh Shankerrao Patil vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 2 September, 2022

Author: Asha Menon

Bench: Asha Menon

                          $~1
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022
                                 SANTOSH SHANKERRAO PATIL               ..... Petitioner
                                             Through: Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Senior
                                                      Advocate Ms.Usha Pandey & Mr.
                                                      Vedant Kulshrestha, Advocates

                                                   versus

                                 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)            ..... Respondent
                                               Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for State with
                                                         SI Ashok Kumar.
                                                         Mr.Vineet Jain, Advocate for
                                                         complainant along with complainant
                                                         in person
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                                                   ORDER

% 02.09.2022

1. This order will dispose of the application moved by one of the accused in FIR No.145/2022 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/ 120B IPC at PS Timarpur, Delhi seeking anticipatory bail. The instant FIR has been registered by complainant, namely, Amar Prakash Shitole, against four accused persons, namely, (i) Somshekhar Kambley, (ii) Parshuram Koti, (iii) present applicant/Santosh Shankerrao Patil and (iv) Mukesh Kumar. It is the case of the complainant that he has been accosted by the accused Nos.1 & 2 in his home town i.e., Belgaum, Karnataka enticing him with stories of profits of crores of rupees if he was able to get the tenders from FCI and Railways. It is stated in the FIR that the accused Nos.1 & 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022 Page 1 of 6 By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:24:12 claimed to know higher officials and subsequently, introduced him to accused Nos. 3 & 4. He in fact accompanied them to the house of the accused No.4. Demands for payments of huge sums of money were made by the accused Nos.3 & 4 of almost 20 lakhs from him, which he paid into their account and in cash. On their assurances, he had asked his co-villagers and relatives to also apply for jobs through the accused persons, who proclaimed that they had connections at their places to assure jobs for the applicants, subject to payments of varied sums of money ranging from Rs.9 lakhs to Rs.12 lakhs. It was submitted that when some payments were made and salaries were not paid, disputes arose which led the complainant to file the complaint with the police, leading to the registration of the FIR in question.

2. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submits that while the FIR names the applicant as one of the accused, in actual fact, he was a victim of the machinations of the accused No.4 and had lost money to him. Way back in 2019, the applicant had made a complaint to the Senior Police Inspector, Bhartiya Vidya Peeth Police Station, Pune, explaining how he along with the others had been swindled by the accused No.4. In that complaint, reference has been made to the present complainant, namely, Amar Prakash Shitole.

3. It was submitted that the applicant was ready and willing to join investigations and furnish all details and documents to the police. It was the contention of the learned senior counsel for the applicant that there was no question of the applicant tampering with the evidence since the evidence would exonerate him. There was no possibility of the applicant absconding since he has roots in the society and has not tried to escape the law, unlike the accused No.4.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant also submitted that in the complaint to the Senior Police Inspector, Bhartiya Vidya Peeth Police Station, Pune, the details have been provided of the money the applicant had received and had returned. It was the submission that even from the complainant, what could be traced into the applicant's account was only a sum of Rs.17 lakhs, which he was ready to return. It was, therefore, prayed that in the circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

5. The Status Report has been filed by the State. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP for the State has opposed the application submitting that the real mastermind of the crime was the applicant. It was submitted that the matter did not relate to a sum of Rs.17 lakhs alone, but involved crores of rupees.

6. It was submitted that a big racket was being run by the accused persons to dupe the gullible and naive persons, such as the complainant. It was submitted that the accounts retrieved by the Investigating Officer showed that when hefty amounts, such as Rs.10 lakhs, were credited into the account of the accused no.4/Mukesh Kumar, it used to be immediately disbursed to various co-accused, including the applicant. It was submitted that the investigations have revealed that there were three bank accounts through which the moneys paid by victims used be channelled, to ultimately get credited to the applicant. It was submitted that these details and the extent of the racket required detailed investigations necessitating custodial interrogation of the applicant.

7. Learned APP for the State further submitted that the complaint lodged by the applicant at Pune was never followed up and only once the anticipatory bail application was moved, the applicant filed a complaint Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022 Page 3 of 6 By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:24:12 before the EOW, Delhi. Thus, it is clear that these attempts were only intended to raise a defence at the appropriate time. Hence, it was urged that the anticipatory bail be not granted to the applicant.

8. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that though on the one hand it is claimed that the applicant was willing to repay the complainant, in actual fact, at his instance, the accused No.4 had issued four cheques, but even at the time the cheques had been issued, the accounts stood closed. Thus, reflecting the mala fides of both the accused. It was submitted that appointment letters had been signed by the applicant, which reflected his role in the entire scam. Hence, the application was opposed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel and I have perused the Daily Diary of the I.O., which includes the copies of two other FIRs that have been registered, one at Nashik [FIR No. 82/2022 u/s 34/420/465/467/468/471/504/506 PS Nandgaon] and the other at Udaipur [FIR No. 164/2021 u/s 420/120 PS Surajpole], against the present applicant for cheating innocent victims by promising jobs and taking money. The extract of the account has also been produced for perusal of this Court, showing multiple transactions following deposit of large sums of money into the account of accused No.4/Mukesh Kumar. It is clear from the investigations made so far and as recorded in the Status Report that the applicant has played a significant role in the commission of the offence of cheating, forgery etc.. To say that the applicant is only a victim is not believable. If the version in his complaint submitted to the Pune Police was alone to be considered, it would appear that he had been promised positions in the Labour Union of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), with certain freedom to appoint people in the FCI godowns and also a position in a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022 Page 4 of 6 By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:24:12 political party for which he had made payments and was therefore, taken for a ride by the accused No.4.

10. However, the investigations in the present FIR reveal that the applicant had played an extremely active role in duping the complainant and others, who were promised jobs, not only at the FCI, but in the Railways and in the MES. If identity cards had been issued by the FCI officials, as claimed by the applicant, revelations would be made effectively only during interrogation of the present applicant to identify all those involved in this crime. The I.O. has found appointment letters signed by the applicant. The victims were taken to various places in Rajasthan giving an impression that they were under training, but it would appear that they were only being used as labour at these FCI godowns, which would be another aspect of cheating of these victims, after having been promised jobs. A fake website had also been created. Apparently, the appointees/trainees were also not paid salaries that had been promised and commission of the offence seems to have been unravelled only when the complainant and others insisted on full salaries.

11. On a consideration of all the facts, it is clear that the request for custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be an unjustified one. The investigations have revealed the extent of the involvement of the applicant from beginning to end. The fact that he joined the accused No.4 to pretend to have taken legitimate interviews and to have actually signed appointment letters would show that despite the stand in his complaint at Pune, the applicant is not a victim, but rather a co-conspirator. It is significant to note that it is the people from smaller towns and rural areas who have been targeted by the accused persons, including the applicant. How far their tentacles had reached, would be a matter of investigation, which cannot be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022 Page 5 of 6 By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:24:12 left at the mercy of the applicant, since it is also the case of the I.O. that he has not joined the investigations so far.

12. No ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

13. The Bail Application is dismissed.

14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

ASHA MENON, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2550/2022 Page 6 of 6 By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:24:12