Prerna @ Bani Sohal and Another vs State

V.K. Shali, J.—This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in respect of FIR No. 03/2012, u/s 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, registered by P.S. Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 is the sole proprietor of an event management concern by the name of M/s Purple Tree Entertainment.

The allegations against the petitioner No. 1 are that she has cheated the respondent/complainant by allegedly arranging the pre-wedding dance performance to be held on 20.11.2011 at Celebrations Garden near Shiv Murti, New Delhi by an artist, named, Miss Urmila Matondkar, who was allegedly not at all approached by the petitioners. It has been stated that ultimately the said performance was done by another artist by the name of Hard Kaur for which the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. So far as the pre wedding dance performance by the artist Ms. Urmila Matondkar was concerned, the fee was settled between the parties at Rs. 13,50,000/- out of which a payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- was made. It is alleged that this performance was confirmed by the petitioners by sending a letter of confirmation. Apart from the aforesaid remuneration the complainant was required to provide boarding, lodging in a Five Star Hotel and transport for the entire troupe in Mercedes and Innova car. Since the said performance could not materialize, the allegations against the petitioner No. 1 are that she is purported to have issued two cheques bearing No. 686894 for a sum of `2,00,000/- and the other cheque bearing No. 686895 `4,67,000/- totaling around `6,67,000/- which were dishonoured on account of stoppage of payment.

It has been contended by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, the learned senior counsel that the petitioners are prepared to deposit the said amount of `6,67,000/- or any such amount with the Court in order to show their bonafides and they are also prepared to join investigation. It has also been contended that the petitioners have a minor son who is a patient of Asthma apart from the old aged father of the petitioner No. 2 who is suffering from various ailments. It is contended that any order denying the benefit of anticipatory bail is going to affect these two family members also.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the case titled Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State (141) 2007 DLT 94 wherein this Court had observed that the law permits interrogation without subjecting the accused to third degree measures and certainly custodial interrogation has not been approved by the High Court in the said case.

The learned APP as well as Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

The submissions of both the learned counsel for the respondents are that the petitioners had dishonest intention of cheating the complainant right from the day one and this fact has been reflected during the course of the investigation while recording the statement of Mansi Dogra, an ex-employee of the petitioners, wherein she has stated that Ms. Urmila Matondkar was not at all contacted by the petitioners for the pre wedding function of the daughter of the respondent/complainant. Further, this fact has been confirmed by the office of the artist herself, that she was never approached.

It has also been contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/complainant that the petitioners not only had the dishonest intention of cheating the respondent/complainant by inducing him to part with a huge amount of money for arranging an artist like Ms. Urmila Matondkar for the pre-wedding function, but they also forged certain documents and used the same as genuine, for and on behalf of two different organizations like M/s Red Chillies Entertainment Company belonging to noted actor Shahrukh Khan and Gauri Khan, to show that the said artist was booked. A letter purported to have been issued by M/s Red Chillies Entertainment was shown to the officials of the said company who had categorically denied that they had no person by the name of K. Karan Raheja, who was working in their organization nor the letter which was purported to have been issued by them was actually issued from their office.

The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that one of the pleas for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioners is the ill health of the father of the petitioner No. 2 while as, an inquiry from the father and other persons has revealed that the petitioners have not been residing with him for the last more than 1 1/2 years.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for both the parties as well as the learned APP.

I have given my careful consideration to the facts of the present case. Normally speaking, the provision of anticipatory bail has been liberally used as directed by the Apex Court, in cases where there is an allegation of false implication etc., more particularly in the case of a woman. Even the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. mandates the grant of bail to women in case the allegations are regarding commission of an offence punishable even with life imprisonment. The parameters which governs the grant of custodial bail are equally applicable to the anticipatory bail. However, while keeping these broad parameters in mind, the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners deserve to be granted bail in the present case or not. Certainly, the answer in my view is in negative. Because the reason for this is that the petitioners in the present case have acted as conman par excellence to make quick money. I find it very difficult to persuade myself to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Prima facie, the petitioners have committed an offence of cheating, allegedly by not arranging a dance performance of Ms. Urmila Matondkar for a total consideration of `13,50,000/-. Moreover, they also seem to have gone to the extent of forging the documents and using the forged documents as genuine which were purported to have been issued by the artist Urmila Matondkar and signing the same herself (petitioner No. 1) as well as the letters purported to have been issued by M/s Red Chillies Entertainment, a company owned by a noted film star through whom the said artist was stated to have been engaged. All these documents have been found to be forged and fabricated to gain the confidence of the complainant to extract money.

In this case, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Mansi Dogra, an ex-employee of M/s Purple Tree Entertainment, the proprietary concern of the petitioner No. 1 has been read over to the Court. The Red Chillies Entertainment, on whose behalf the letter is purported to have been issued by the petitioners is actually signed by the petitioner No. 1 herself for or on behalf of one Mr. K. Karan Raheja, while as the said organization has denied having issued any such letter for engaging of any artist or any person by the said person working in their organization. A letter is also purported to have been issued by Ms. Urmila Matondkar herself, on a computer form and signed by the petitioner No. 1 herself, confirming the engagement of the said artist. This letter also creates an impression that it is the artist herself who has confirmed the performance while as the letter is signed by the petitioner No. 1.

All these facts clearly show the recklessness and disrespect towards law in the mind of the petitioners, who are husband and wife. It seems that the petitioners have a false notion that they can thrive on falsehood. They have even gone to the extent to set up the ploy of the illness of their child and the ill health of the father of the petitioner No. 2 as a ground for grant of anticipatory bail while as the father himself, on being questioned, has stated that he has not seen his son and daughter-in-law as they have not been residing with him for the past 11/2 years and perhaps for the right reasons that both the husband and wife were collecting of easy money by duping people.

Therefore, this is not a case where there are chances of false implication of the petitioners. On the contrary, there is a prima facie evidence which shows involvement of the petitioners to make quick money by duping not only the complainant but other persons also.

The question which arises for consideration is the interrogation of the petitioners. The interrogation of the petitioners, no doubt, has to be done by the local police and the law does not approve of third degree measures, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court nor a custodial interrogation is approved generally as a system of interrogation. But mere fact that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta''s case (Supra) has not approved a custodial interrogation, does not necessarily mean that the custodial interrogation is prohibited. As a matter of fact, it has been observed by the Apex Court in the case titled State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, as under:-

custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elucidation- oriented than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in gathering many useful information and materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce it to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods cannot be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all the accused in all the criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a reasonable manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

This observation of the Apex Court fits very well with the facts of the present case. This is evident from the fact that the petitioners had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court which, at the time of issuance of notice, had granted interim protection against the arrest of the petitioners on 24.01.2012 and immediately on 27.01.2012, the petitioner No. 1 sent a letter to the police under her own signatures that she is under protection of interim bail, and therefore, she is available herself to join investigation and cooperate with the same. This letter has been given purposely because they know that they want to undergo the ritual of interrogation and deprive the police of going to the root of the matter. The bail application itself was subsequently rejected on 28.01.2012 by the Sessions Judge, who herself happens to be a Lady Judge and obviously this was done keeping in view the facts of the case, she has also observed that the petitioners had dishonest intentions to cheat the respondent/complainant right from the beginning.

All these facts clearly show that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted the discretion of anticipatory bail by this Court. It is a fit case where the petitioners need to be subjected to custodial interrogation.

For the aforesaid reasons, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is rejected.