Dalip Kumar vs. The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted interim protection subject to joining the investigation. The respondent submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, no incriminating material was found against him at that stage, and his name was mentioned in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet, implying no apprehension of arrest. The petitioner's counsel then submitted that since the petitioner had not been charge-sheeted, there was no apprehension of arrest. Consequently, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the court again if the need arose. The Court allowed this request, dismissing the petition with the liberty granted.

Facts

The petitioner, Dalip Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 172/2018 registered under Sections 384, 420, 468, 463, 471, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that a co-accused befriended the complainant on social media and extorted approximately Rs. 11 crores on the pretext of medical treatments and threats of defamation. The co-accused's disclosure statement claimed payments of approximately Rs. 14 lakhs to the petitioner, purchase of vehicles for the petitioner's benefit, and alleged the petitioner's involvement in the transaction. The complainant further alleged paying Rs. 3 crores to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be a timber merchant with commercial transactions with the father of the co-accused, asserting payments were for business and reflected in GST returns. He also highlighted discrepancies in the disclosure statement regarding amounts paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 172/2018, considering the allegations of extortion and cheating, and the material placed on record, particularly the disclosure statement of the co-accused and the petitioner's GST returns? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 384, 420, 468, 463, 471, 34, 120-B IPC). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated, stating he is a timber merchant and the payments received were for legitimate business transactions, supported by GST returns. He pointed out that the disclosure statement distinguished between the Rs. 14 lakhs paid and the Rs. 3 crores allegedly paid to him, and contended that no material beyond the disclosure statement connected him to the offense. Respondent's (State's) Contentions: The respondent, through the learned APP, submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, no incriminating material was found against him at that stage, and his name was mentioned in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet, indicating no immediate apprehension of arrest.