HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 111/2017 & Crl.M.A. No.1100/2017 RITESH GUPTA vs STATE

 [P S TEJI JUSTICE ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT

• Application for bail The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CRPC has been preferred by the applicant in a case arising out of FIR lodged under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mangolpuri – From the material placed on record and the submissions made, the only role assigned to the petitioner is that he was the guarantor of the loan advanced to the company of which his father and others were directors/promoters. It is not specifically alleged against the petitioner that he committed any forgery of the documents. Even otherwise, as per the statement of the learned prosecutor, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation – It is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing of personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

Relevant Paras:

5. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sobran Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (11) SCALE 520; Jagdish Nautiyal Vs. State 2013 [1] JCC 311; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2016) 1 SCC 152 & Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. In the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), it was observed that Section 438 Cr.P.C. gives direction to the Court to exercise the power in a particular case or not, and once such a discretion is there merely because the accused is charged with a serious offence may not by itself be the reason to refuse the grant of anticipatory bail if the circumstances are otherwise justified.
7. In the case of Jagdish Nautiyal (supra) and Sobran Singh (supra), it was observed that the totality of circumstances deserve to be seen before a person is granted or denied the anticipatory bail. In the case of Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) it was observed that Courts should be loath to reject the grant of anticipatory bail inasmuch as it impinges on the personal liberty of a person and unless and until there is an imminent and a great imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused, the anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on instructions of the investigating officer present in court, has submitted that though the accused has been absconding and proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. are going on, but since the role of the applicant is only guarantor, he is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. The investigating officer has further stated that so far as the signatures on the documents which are alleged to be forged, are concerned, the report of the CFSL is lying pending.
9. From the material placed on record and the submissions made, the only role assigned to the petitioner is that he was the guarantor of the loan advanced to the company of which his father and others were directors/promoters. It is not specifically alleged against the petitioner that he committed any forgery of the documents. Even otherwise, as per the statement of the learned prosecutor, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation.
10. In the above facts and circumstances and the fact that the role of the applicant is only guarantor and he is neither the director nor the shareholder of the company, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner – Ritesh Gupta, subject to his joining the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.
11. In view of the facts of this case, it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner – Ritesh gupta be released on bail subject to his furnishing of personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

for read the judgment click here 

RITESH GUPTA VS STATE JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT THE LAW LITERATES

All Rights Reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhavi Tomar)