High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 11 DEL CK 0353

J.D. Bansal vs State

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 November 2014 · Citation: (2014) 4 JCC 3023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2362 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 395 words

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.—This petition has been filed by Sh. J.D. Bansal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 511/2014 registered at police station Shalimar Bagh on 04.06.2014 under Sections 420, 471, 34 IPC. The aforesaid FIR has been lodged at the instance of the complainant Anil Aggarwal alleging that the son of the petitioner, Sh. Ravi Bansal, who was also the proprietor of M/s. Bansal Steel Works, had approached the complainant and persuaded him to arrange funds for investment in his business since he had a lucrative order for manufacture of stainless steel pressure cookers from the well known brand "Hawkins".

2.

It is also alleged that the petitioner, J.D. Bansal, accompanied his son Ravi Bansal and supported him throughout. Believing in the assurances hold out by Ravi Bansal and his father, i.e., the petitioner herein, the complainant is stated to have arranged funds to the tune of Rs. 1,68,50,000/- from his family and friends, and entrusted the same to the accused. It is further alleged that later on, the complainant realized that, in fact, no such orders were there, and that the entire story was fictitious. Sh. Ravi Bansal stated to have died on 07.09.2014.

3.

Notice in this matter was issued on 31.10.2014. The status report has also been filed.

4.

The status report shows that the investigation is in progress and the petitioner has been available to the Investigating Officer.

5.

Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is required for further investigation on 27.11.2014 at 4:00 pm. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall make himself available on that date and time, and thereafter, whenever required. Let the same be done.

6.

At the same time, both counsel have expressed their desire to explore the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement, without prejudice to their respective positions that they have taken in the matter.

7.

Under the circumstances, both parties will appear before the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 05.12.2014 at 4:00 pm. A report of the Mediator be filed in this Court within three months thereafter. Consequently, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The petition stands disposed off.