2020 (3) TMI 300 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - section 138 of NI Act - Jurisdiction of the case - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that complaint was initially received on 8.6.2018 and FIR in question was registered on 25.6.2018 at Police Station Shakarpur - It is also not in dispute that petitioner appeared before IO at Police Station Shakarpur on 17.10.2018 and he also appeared twice before Economic Offence Wing during inquiry. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, judicial interrogation of petitioner is no more required. Moreover, he is in judicial custody since 29.7.2019 - the present case is fit for bail. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offenses punishable under Sections 420/406/120-B/34/174-A IPC.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The prosecution's case involved complaints against a partnership firm and its directors for alleged fraudulent activities, leading to the registration of FIR No.272/2018 at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi. The complainants accused the firm of promising monthly earnings and taking security amounts, resulting in dishonored cheques and pending cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner's defense highlighted civil suits where the court ruled in favor of the firm, absolving the directors of liability to pay any amount. Various complainants had entered into agreements with the firm, received profits, and later filed complaints under the NI Act, leading to legal disputes and pending adjudications.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the intention was not dishonest at the agreement's inception, as the franchisees were terminated after the firm suffered losses, and security amounts were returned. Civil suits and criminal cases under the NI Act were initiated by the complainants, alleging cheating and dishonored cheques.

4. The petitioner had previously been convicted under the NI Act, but bail was granted in a revision petition. The prosecution contended that the petitioner misappropriated a significant amount, leading to the transfer of the complaint to the police station and subsequent judicial custody.

5. The court considered the petitioner's appearances before the investigating officer and the Economic Offence Wing, along with the filing of the charge-sheet. After evaluating the circumstances, the court deemed the case suitable for bail, requiring a personal bond and sureties for release.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition for bail, emphasizing the petitioner's compliance with investigative procedures and the filing of the charge-sheet. The decision aimed to balance the legal considerations and the petitioner's custody status, ensuring compliance with the bail conditions set by the court.