Neeraj Gupta @ Neeraj Dengre vs. State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)

Facts

The petitioner, Neeraj Gupta, sought regular bail in FIR No. 520/2023 registered under Sections 420, 406, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner, acting as an agent in the spice business, along with co-accused, defrauded the complainant of Rs. 97,85,475/- by taking orders for spices and assuring their storage at Sudarshan Cold Storage, Gwalior, which turned out to be false. The complainant later improved his case, alleging additional sums and goods supplied, and claimed that the GST Department had raided the cold storage and seized goods, which the petitioner allegedly got released using forged documents. The petitioner contended that the dispute was civil and the criminal proceedings were a tactic to harass him. He highlighted that the complainant had settled with other co-accused, who were granted anticipatory bail, and his wife, Jyoti Gupta, also received anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since September 26, 2024.

Held

The Court admitted the petitioner, Neeraj Gupta, to regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigations and had been in judicial custody since September 26, 2024. It was also observed that the Investigating Officer did not seek custodial interrogation, and the charge sheet had already been filed. While acknowledging the allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust, the Court considered the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was not seeking custodial interrogation. The Court also took into account the settlement between the complainant and other co-accused, and the grant of anticipatory bail to them and the petitioner's wife. The Court found no purpose in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody under these circumstances. The bail was granted subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, appearing in court as and when required, providing a working mobile number to the IO, refraining from criminal activity and contact with witnesses, and intimating any change of address. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 520/2023 under Sections 420/406/409/120B IPC, considering his role as an agent, the civil nature of the dispute, and the settlement with co-accused? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil and the criminal proceedings were initiated as an arm-twisting tactic. He emphasized that the complainant had amicably settled the matter with other co-accused, who were subsequently granted anticipatory bail, and that his wife had also been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. He further submitted that he had been in judicial custody since September 26, 2024, his custodial interrogation was not required, and the charge sheet had been filed, making further detention unnecessary. He asserted that there was no apprehension of him absconding or tampering with evidence. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Jyoti Gupta, had created a shell firm, "Kanishka Traders," to defraud the complainant. They claimed that the petitioner and his wife were not found at their residence, and their family members and neighbours stated that Jyoti Gupta was not involved in any business, but the petitioner was an agent in spice selling. The State also highlighted that the petitioner had allegedly got goods released from the GST Department using forged documents without the complainant's authority. They contended that there was a possibility of the accused threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence, and that the petitioner might abscond.