Shikha Raghav v. State

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. OCTOBER 30, 2017 /gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1422/2017 Order reserved on : 14th September, 2017 Order pronounced on :30th October, 2017 SHIKHA RAGHAV .….Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate. Versus THE STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Virendra Kumar, PS Roop Nagar Delhi. Mr. Anand Verdhan Maitrega, Advocate with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 359/2016 under Sections 406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, New Delhi. 2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Santosh Bhardwaj who stated that Abhay, Pawan and Shikha/present petitioner have cheated Rs 60 lakhs from her. She alleged that the persons so named in the FIR were well known to her as they all were a part of the Ram Leela Committee, of which the complainant is the advisor; that after demonetization as there were long ques for depositing the demonetized currency, Abhay, Pawan and Shikha/petitioner gave assurance to the complainant for getting the money deposited in her account without any hassle; that on the said assurance the complainant alongwith others handed over a total sum of Rs 60 Lakhs to Abhay, Pawan and Shikha/petitioner on 11.11.2016 near Nangia Park; that on the next day the petitioner and other co-accused Pawan informed the complainant that co- accused Abhay ran away with the money however they assured that they would return the money to the complainant at the earliest; that the petitioner also gave an undertaking in her own handwriting that she would return the money to the complainant from Abhay and on failing to do so she would mortgage her house; that thereafter all three co-accused persons including the petitioner have been absconding and hence the present complainant had been lodged. 3. The first anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2016 on consideration of the fact that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and digital evidence in the shape of CCTV footage and call records were yet to be recovered. Second anticipatory bail application was moved before this Court by the petitioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2016, on consideration of serious allegations against the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner moved a third anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2017. Hence the present bail application. 4. Mr. Puneet Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the actual transaction had taken place between the complainant and other co-accused Abhay and the petitioner was completely unaware of the same; that it was only on 13.11.2016 that the complainant informed the petitioner about the transaction which took place with Abhay on 12.11.2016 and that Abhay had run away with the money; that the petitioner was induced to go to the police station, Bharat Nagar on 14.11.2016 where her statements were recorded by the police officials under serious threats which can be verified from CCTV footage of PS, Bharat Nagar; that the petitioner lodged a written complaint of criminal intimidation and threatening on 16.11.2016 at about 09:20 a.m. and subsequently thereafter on the same date the complainant lodged a false complainant against the petitioner and two other persons; that the complainant herself has criminal antecedents as she has been involved in numerous criminal activities and several complaints have been lodged against her which have also been reported in the newspaper 'The Hindu' dated 21.10.2004, which has b