Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Delhi High Court – Orders
Hanuman Prasad vs State on 22 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 495/2023
HANUMAN PRASAD ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State
with SI Yogesh PS Kotwali, Delhi.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 22.02.2024
1. The present application has been filed under Section 438 read with
Section 482 Cr.PC. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 765/2022 registered
under Section 406 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant states that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case as the dispute relates to a
business transaction of gold between the parties that took place vide “Issue
voucher” dated 06.01.2021. The applicant being a trader had sold the entire
quantity and reimbursed the complainant. After the said transaction, the
parties had entered into further transactions vide “Issue vouchers” dated
15.02.2021, 24.02.2021and 24.08.2021 which were also completed and in
this regard, learned counsel has referred to the “receipt vouchers” dated
24.08.2021, 01.02.2022 and 21.04.2022.
3. It is contended that the present the present FIR came to be registered
only on 06.08.2022 for the transaction relating to “Issue voucher” dated
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2024 at 21:52:11
06.01.2021 and is thus highly belated. The complainant has failed to show if
anything was remaining under the transaction dated 06.01.2021 then why it
entered into subsequent transactions.
Lastly, it is submitted that pursuant to directions, the applicant has
also joined investigation.
4. Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP for State duly assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application. It
is stated that the complainant had given a complaint on 21.12.2021,
whereafter the applicant had preferred an application for grant of
anticipatory bail on 15.01.2022. On 17.01.2022, the applicant joined the
investigation and gave a handwritten letter to the SHO, wherein he admitted
that he had received the gold and stated that he would pay the remaining
amount towards the gold in six instalments beginning from the month of
January, 2022. The said communication was statedly also signed by the
applicant’s counsel. Consequently, the said bail application came to be
withdrawn on 18.01.2022.
The applicant again joined investigation on 01.06.2022 and his
statement was recorded wherein it was stated that he would return 200 gms
of gold by 12.06.2022 and the remaining gold in 20-30 days thereafter. A
second anticipatory bail application came to be filed on 13.06.2022 which
was dismissed on 14.06.2022. On 02.01.2023, notice under Section 41A
Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant, whereafter he preferred a third
anticipatory bail application on 10.01.2023 and the same came to be
dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2023.
It was thus contended that the applicant had admitted to return the
unsold gold which he eventually failed to return.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2024 at 21:52:11
5. The instant bail application is accompanied by copies of various
“Issue vouchers” and “Receipt vouchers”. While learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the “Issue vouchers” relate to the transactions
wherein] gold ornaments are handed over by the complainant to the
applicant for further trading, the “Receipt vouchers” reflect the unsold
inventory handed back to the complainant. He has further canvassed that the
“Issue vouchers” and “Receipt vouchers” pertained to different transactions.
The stand taken by the applicant is contested by learned APP for State as
well as by the learned counsel for the complainant. They have taken the
Court through the various “Issue and Receipt vouchers” to show that out of
the total gold quantity of 1068.120 gms, the applicant is yet to return gold
quantity of 918.940 gms.
During investigation, the balance-sheet maintained by the
complainant has been seized as per which, against the initial handing over of
1068.120 gms of gold, certain quantities of gold were returned and afresh
“Receipt voucher” was issued indicating the remaining amount of gold to
be returned. The detailed analysis of the various “Receipt vouchers” and the
amount of gold remaining to be returned is as under:-
HANUMAN JI BALANCE SHEET
TOTAL DUE: 918.940
Date Last due Fine 100% Present Balance
06.01.2021 1068.120 0 1068.120
15.02.2021 1068.120 50.220 1017.900
24.08.2021 1017.900 30.25 987.650
01.02.2022 987.650 50.26 937.390
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2024 at 21:52:11
21.04.2022 937.390 18.45 918.940
6. A perusal of the entire factual matrix as detailed above would show
that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature inasmuch as it
reflects that 918.940 gms of gold is yet to be returned.
7. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has canvassed that the
subsequent “Issue vouchers” show that a fresh transaction of gold took
place. On the contrary, it is observed that post transaction of 06.01.2021,
every time the applicant had returned some quantity of gold a,
corresponding receipt voucher was issued for the same. At the same time, a
fresh “Issue voucher” was issued for the remaining unsold inventory.
8. The above table mathematically shows that all “Issue vouchers” and
“Receipt vouchers” in fact, relate to the original transaction of 06.01.2021
vide which the applicant was handed over 1068.120 gms of gold. The
contention by applicant to contend that every “issue voucher” meant a new
transaction, is nothing but misleading.
9. It is trite that at the time of consideration of bail application, the Court
is not required to undertake a detailed analysis of the evidence on record
rather, it has to be satisfied that there is a prima facie view that the applicant
is alleged to have committed the offence. In view of the aforesaid, I find no
ground to entertain the present application and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2024/rd
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2024 at 21:52:11
