Surender Singh Sood v. State

order dated 3rd December, 2009 to the extent that the time for making the payment of T15 lacs in terms of the order dated 3rd December, 2009 be extended. But no recall of the order dated 03.12.2009 was sought by the petitioner on the ground that he had been compelled to give the undertaking by the complainant as stated today. Furthermore, the aforesaid plea is at Bail App.1 930/2011 complete variance to the averments contained in the present petition, wherein it has been repeatedly stated by the petitioner that while giving the undertaking on 03.12.2009, his intention was bona fide and he is still keen to comply with the said order. So this plea is rejected as being devoid of merits.

¶10Coming to the question of deciding the bail application of the petitioner on merits, having regard to the nature of offence, the contents of status report filed by the State and the arguments addressed by the learned APP as noted above and considering the fact that the testimony of the material witnesses has yet to be recorded, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶11Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are limited to the scope of grant of bail to the petitioner and shall not be treated as a reflection on the merits of the case, which is pending before the court below and the said court shall decide the case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. (HIMA KOHLI) MARCH 16, 2011 JUDGE Bisht Bail App. 1930/2011

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN No. 1930/2010 Decided on: 16.03.2011 IN THE MATTER OF SURENDER SINGH SOOD Petitioner Through : Mr.Sunil Mittal with Mr.Kshitij Mittal, Adv. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the. Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment shoufti be reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.PC praying, inter alia, for grant of bail in F.I.R. No.829/2006 registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC at P.S. Paschim Vihar. The status report was called from the State. The same has been filed with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner. Briefly stated, the allegations of the complainant, Rajender Singh, as set out in the FIR are that he is the owner and proprietor of a Gas Bai!App.1930/2011 - Pagelof7 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Agency by the name of Himmat Gas Agency. In May 2005, he met Ram Kumar Pawar, co-accused in the present case, who informed him that he was in the business of exporting human hair. Ram Kumar Pawar introduced the complainant to the petitioner and both of them persuaded the complainant to invest his money in the said business, as they gave him an impression that there was huge demand for the aforesaid item in the European countries. The complainant states that when he expressed his inability to arrange the funds required for the aforesaid business, Ram Kumar Pawar suggested to him that he could take a loan against a newly purchased property, which he could repay in installments as and when he got profit from the said business. The complainant agreed to the proposal and got a loan sanctioned from a bank for an amount of 17,50,000/-, against a property owned by his wife. 4. Thereafter, Ram Kumar Pawar took the complainant to Calcutta for purchasing human hair for export and made a payment of Z13.2 lacs . from the money given by the complainant. The purchased human hair were despatched to the petitioner in Delhi. The complainant came back to Delhi and was informed by the petitioner that some more money was required to be sent to Ram Kumar Pawar in Calcutta, in order to purchase more human hair. As a result, the complainant sent two cheques of Z5 lacs and Z2 lacs respectively to Ram Kumar Pawar in Calcutta. Within one month of the aforesaid transaction, the complainant again paid !20 lacs to the petitioner and Ram Kumar Pawar. Thereafter, both the accused further induced the complainant to arrange for some more money from the property mortgaged by his wife with the bank, so that a large quantity of human hair could be Bail App.1 930/2011 purchased and exported to European countries, where the demand for such an item was very high. As a result, in October 2005, the complainant further mortgaged his property, to the credit limit of Z40 lacs, with the bank. He forwarded a cheque of Z21 lacs to Ram Kumar Pawar in Calcutta, which amount if included with all the previous payments made by the complainant to the petitioner and Ram Kumar Pawar collectively totalled to 151,20,000/-. Thereupon, both the accused informed the complainant that the order for human hair, allegedly placed by a firm based in USA, had been cancelled and that because of this they needed to purchase more human hair so that same could be supplied in huge quantities to other companies which were based in Europe. Pursuant to this, the complainant paid an additional amount of 720 lacs, by way of four cheques of Z5 lacs each. Subsequently, the petitioner and Ram Kumar Pawar further demanded a sum of Zi !ac from the complainant, but he refused to pay the same. The complainant, therefore, registered the present FIR No. 829 of 2006 a