02 September 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Default or Fraud >> Debt Recovery  

A Delhi court has rejected a bail petition filed by the petitioner in a high-profile fraud case involving significant financial misconduct and alleged deceptive practices. The case, registered under FIR No.198/2017 at P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi, involves multiple charges including sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and additional sections under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

The petitioner sought regular bail through a petition filed under sections 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), arguing that despite being accused of offenses triable by a Magistrate, he had already spent over three years in judicial custody. His counsel, Mr. M. N. Dudeja, highlighted that the maximum punishment for the offense under section 420 IPC is up to seven years, and thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail under section 436-A of the Cr.P.C.

The court’s attention was drawn to the fact that the petitioner had previously been granted bail on June 21, 2019, based on a settlement with the complainant. However, this bail was canceled on September 20, 2021, due to non-compliance with the settlement terms. The petitioner’s failure to honor the settlement was attributed to his bank accounts being frozen in a different case, which impeded his ability to pay the agreed amount.

Despite this, the court observed that the petitioner had not adhered to bail conditions and had failed to appear regularly before the court, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. This non-compliance and the petitioner’s subsequent absconding behavior were significant factors in the court’s decision.

The State’s representative, Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, opposed the bail petition, emphasizing the petitioner’s history of defrauding multiple individuals and entities. She argued that the petitioner’s conduct, including the non-honor of the settlement and his previous absconding behavior, indicated a propensity for deception and fraud, which justified the denial of bail.

Ms. Bandhopadhya further contended that section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not guarantee an automatic right to bail simply based on the duration of custody. She pointed out that delays in proceedings caused by the petitioner, including his absconding and non-compliance with court orders, should be factored into the decision.

The court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the petitioner’s past conduct, concluded that the petitioner’s behavior—both in failing to comply with settlement terms and in evading judicial processes—disqualified him from being granted regular bail at this time. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition and disposed of any pending applications.

The decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that bail is granted not only based on the duration of custody but also on the petitioner’s compliance with legal obligations and past conduct.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973