Raj Kumar Jha vs State Nct Of Delhi

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J

By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner

seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 95/2017 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at P.S

Crime Branch, Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 22.08.2017. Status report is on record.

Brief facts of the present case as reflected in the FIR are that a complaint was lodged on 23.06.2017 by one Shrikant Achary who alleged that he

received a call from one Tanya on behalf of ClickJob (job consultancy) who offered him a job through the said consultancy on the payment of a

consideration of Rs.18,000/-; that on the said offer, the complainant made a payment of Rs.18,000/-through net banking; that thereafter the

complainant received several calls on behalf of ClickJob, from different numbers and he was made to pay a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- to

ClickJob on the false assurance of securing him a job; that despite paying the entire amount charged by ClickJob, the complainant was neither given

the job nor was the amount charged from him refunded; that that the said consultancy has since then avoiding the calls made by the complainant and

hence the present complaint has been lodged.

The present petitioner has previously filed four bail applications before the Trial Court, however the same have been dismissed vide orders dated

26.08.2017, 29.08.2017,14.09.2017 and 21.09.2017.

Mr. Kunal Madan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the present complaint has been lodged against ClickJob-a unit of M/s Perspi

Interactive Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner has been arrested merely on the statement of the main accused Sanjeet Singh who is the director of M/s

Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.; that the petitioner's firm M/s ARV Busines Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has entered into a contract with M/s Perspi Interactive

Pvt. Ltd. for providing telecalling services to ClickJob; that the petitioner's firms was merely a BPO centre providing telemarketing services on the

instructions of ClickJob to inform its customers about the services offered by clickjob.com; that the obligation to provide the services offered by

clickjob.com was completely of its own and the petitioner's firm was not liable for commitments made by the company ClickJob; that after initial

interactions with the customers, the payments charged from the customers was directly paid to clickjob.com and the petitioner's firm was not a

beneficiary whatsoever in the said transactions; that the petitioner's firm is merely providing services to ClickJob, for which it is being paid by M/s

ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; that the entire amount as alleged in the FIR has already been paid to the complainant; that the main accused

Sanjeet Kumat Singh has already been enlarged on regular bail and the other co-accused persons i.e. Ms. Barkha and Ms. Pooja, have been granted

anticipatory bail by the Trial Court; that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody for a prolonged period and hence he

be released on regular bail as prayed for.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a Director of M/s

ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which has entered into a contract with ClickJob and both these entities are persuading people with false job

assurances; that similar other complaints have also been lodged against the present petitioner alleging the same offence; that investigation in the

present case is ongoing and hence the petition be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Perusal of the record reveals that, as per the agreement dated 04.01.2016 entered into between M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd./ firm owned by

main accused and M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd./petitioner's firm, the latter is engaged by the former to market and sell the product namely

Resume Services through the website clickjob.com. which is a unit of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. The agreement provides that the revenue

sharing would be to the proportion of 65% for M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 35% for M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. It has also been

stated therein that the entire revenue generated by the parties to the contract, will be collected in the name of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.

Therefore from the above, it is clear that the petitioner's firm has been merely providing a platform for disseminating the services offered by ClickJob

to the public. Also the amount which is charged from the public for the services so offered is credited directly in the name of M/s Perspi Interactive

Pvt. Ltd. and not to the petitioner's firm. Therefore the ultimate beneficiaries in the said transactions M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. that is owned by

the main accused Sanjeet Singh.

As per records, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was charged from the complainant on the false assurance of providing him a job, out of which a sum of

Rs.62,000/- was alleged to have been paid by him on the call made on behalf of the petitioner's firm. However the entire amount as charged from the

complainant has been refunded back to him by the main accused Sanjeet Singh. Hence no recovery is yet to be effected from the present petitioner.

Furthermore, the Trial Court has granted regular bail to the main accused Sanjeet Singh vide order dated 20.09.2017 and anticipatory bail to other

co-accused persons namely Pooja and Barkha vide order dated 20.09.2017.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of Trial Court

concerned;

ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required;

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the

case during trial.

Copy of this Order be given dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master.