IN 

 THE   COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

            Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2002

In the matter of:

Neeru Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                  

12, Deshbandhu Apartments,

Kalkaji, New Delhi                   

(through its authorised

representative Sh. Philipose Oommen)       …Petitioner

     Vs.

1.Devinder Kumar Aggarwal

s/o late Sh. M.K.Gupta Aggarwal,

R/o ………...

2.State (NCT of Delhi)                …Respondents

 

                                  FIR No. 670/97

                                  U/s 420/468/471 I.P.C.

                                  P.S. Kalkaji

PETITION UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING THE

CANCELLATION OF BAIL GRANTED TO ABOVE NAMED
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.9.2001 BY
THIS HONBLE’ COURT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.      The present petition under section 439(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure

for cancellation of the bail of the accused/respondent No.1 is being filed

by the petitioner/complainant company through its authorised

representative Sh. Philipose Oomen, who has been duly authorised by

the complainant company in this regard.

2.      That the Respondent no. 1 has been arrayed as an accused for an offence u/s

420/468/471 I.P.C. registered vide FIR No. 159/98 Police Station Kalka Ji,

New Delhi on the allegations of having cheated the

petitioner/complainant company of a huge amount.

3.      The respondent No. 1 had moved a petition under section 439 of the code of

criminal Procedure for grant of bail before this Hon’ble court. The said

petition being Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 2091/99 came up for hearing on 15-9-

1999 and this Hon’ble court was pleased to grant interim bail to the
 respondent No. 1  for a period of two months to enable him to make

arrangements and pay the entire amount to the complainant company.

A copy of the said order dated 15-9-1999 is annexed herewith and

is marked as ANNEXURE-A.

4.      That the aforesaid petition was, thereafter, adjourned to 17-11-1999 for final

disposal. On 17-11-1999 this Hon’ble court was further pleased to extend

the interim bail granted to the respondent No. 1 for a further period of six

months since the respondent No.1 and the

petitioner/complainant company had reached a settlement to the effect

that the accused/respondent No.1 (petitioner in the said petition Crl. Misc.

(Main) No. 2190/99) had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 16.50 Lacs to the

petitioner/complainant company. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.

1,50,000/- had already been paid to the petitioner/complainant company

and it was undertaken by the accused respondent No.1 that the remaining

Rs. 15 lacs will be paid to the complainant company within a period of two

years from the said date. In the said circumstances, vide the order dated

17-11-1999, the interim bail granted to the respondent No. 1 was

extended for a period of six months and the matter was adjourned to 10-

5-2000.

A copy of the order dated 17-11-1999 is annexed herewith and is marked

as ANNEXURE-B.

5.      That thereafter, there was a non-compliance of the order by the accused/

respondent No.1 and upon prayer of the accused this Hon’ble court

pleased to modify the terms of the earlier order dated 17-11-1999 and

permitted the accused to pay the remaining amount as per the modified
 terms. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 2-8-2000 and the interim

bail was extended till the next fixed date.

A copy of the order dated 10-5-2000 is annexed herewith and is marked

as ANNEXURE-C.

6.      That even thereafter, the accused/respondent No. 1 committed several

defaults and there was non-compliance of the orders passed earlier in

respect of making the payment to the complainant company and various

orders were passed to the effect of permitting the petitioner to pay the

balance amount as per revised schedule.

The copies said orders dated

7.      That the accused/respondent No. 1 gave to the petitioner company a Banker’s

cheque bearing No. 426971 dated 5-8-2000 issued by Vikas Co-operative

Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad for Rs. 3.0 lacs. The

petitioner/ complainant company presented the said Banker’s cheque for

realization through its Bank, namely, Punjab National Bank. However, the

said Banker’s cheque was not encashed and even the said Banker’s cheque

was not even returned by the issuing Bank. Upon enquiry, it came to be

known that the said issuing Bank had closed down prior to the alleged

issuance of the said Banker’s cheque.

8.      That on 12-9-2001, the matter of grant of bail to the respondent No. 1 came

up for hearing before this Hon’ble court and the above noted facts relating

to the dishonour of the said Banker’s cheque were brought to the notice of

this Hon’ble court. This Hon’ble court was pleased to direct further
 investigation in this regard. A copy of the said order dated 12-9-2001 is

annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-D.

9.      That during the hearing of the matter on 12-9-2001, it was stated on behalf of

the accused/respondent No.1 that the respondent had already paid a sum

of Rs. 12.75 lacs to the petitioner/complainant company and that the

remaining sum of Rs. 3.75 lacs was being paid by way of a post-dated

cheque dated 21-11-2001 drawn on Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Delhi. The

petitioner who was present in person in the court also assured and

undertook that the said post-dated cheque would be honoured on the due

date. These facts have been duly recorded in the aforesaid order dated 12-

9-2001, while granting bail to the accused/respondent No.1.

10.    That the said post-dated cheque dated 21-11-2001 was presented for

encashment and has been dishonoured by the drawee Bank vide Memo

dated 22-11-2001 for the reasons of insufficiency of funds in the account.

11.    That the accused/respondent No.1 made the above stated false assurance

and undertaking to the effect that the said post-dated cheque would be

honoured and thus persuaded this Hon’ble court to grant bail to the

accused/ respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 also false and dishonestly

denied the factum of the dishonour of the above referred Banker’s cheque

for Rs. 3.0 lacs while making submissions before this Hon’ble court

knowing it fully well that the said Banker’s cheque had been a forged

cheque and the alleged issuing bank had closed down much before the

said issuance of the banker’s cheque.

12.    The above stated facts clearly make out a case, wherein the accused obtained

bail by misleading this Hon’ble by playing blatant fraud with utmost

dishonest intentions.
 13.    It is submitted that the accused/respondent No.1 was granted interim bail

vide orders dated 15-9-1999 and 17-11-1999 subject to the specific

condition that he would make the payment of the afore mentioned sum of

money to the petitioner company. Even the final order of bail dated 12-9-

2001 had been passed on the said same premise of assurance and

undertaking by the accused/respondent No. 1 that the entire balance

amount in terms of the earlier orders for interim bail would be made to the

petitioner company.

14.    That the accused/ respondent No.1 has violated and breached the conditions

of bail and thus disentitling himself for the concession of bail. The conduct

of the accused/respondent No. 1 in not only committing serious criminal

offence of cheating and fraud as against the

petitioner/ complainant company of such huge amount of money and also

playing deliberate fraud upon this Hon’ble court is such which cannot be

condoned. The accused /respondent No.1 has shown scantiest of regards

for the Hon’ble courts and the process of law.

15.    That it shall be otherwise expedient and in the interest of justice in view of

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the bail granted to

the accused /respondent No.1 be cancelled.

16.    That the continuance of the Respondent No. 1 on bail would lead to grave

injustice and would hamper the course of law.

17.    That no similar petition has been filed by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble

Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 
 In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may

be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the accused/respondent No. 1

vide  order dated 12-9-2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the Crl. Misc.

(Main) NO. 2091/1999 and the accuse /Respondent No.1  be committed to

custody pending the decision of the case.

                             Petitioner

     NEW DELHI                THROUGH

    

BHUPENDERSHARMA
ASSOCIATES

ADVOCATES

CHAMBER NO. 126-127

                                   PATIALA HOUSE COURTS

                                   NEW DELHI 110001