Sunil Joshan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The applicants, Sunil Joshan and Anil Joshan, sons of accused Sumer Chand, filed applications seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 75/2018 registered at Baba Haridas Nagar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. The FIR was lodged by complainant Parul Goel alleging that the applicants, in conspiracy with co-accused, fraudulently induced the complainant to supply paddy worth approximately Rs. 2.29 crores to M/s. S.S. Exports without making full payment, and thereafter threatened the complainant when payment was demanded.

The applicants had previously been granted bail which was subsequently cancelled on 18.03.2019 after they failed to comply with a settlement deed dated 26.07.2018 wherein they had agreed to pay Rs. 1.55 crores to the complainant. The applicants and co-accused Sumer were declared absconders on 18.12.2019, and their earlier challenge to the bail cancellation order in Crl.M.C. 3091/2019 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court examined the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694.

The Court took note of the applicants' antecedents, their prior declaration as absconders, their non-cooperation with the investigation, their alleged involvement in similar cases, and their failure to honour the settlement terms. The applications were considered in light of the gravity of the accusation, the conduct of the applicants, and the likelihood of misuse of liberty, while also considering the applicants' submissions that the dispute was civil in nature and that the chargesheet had already been filed.

Catchwords: anticipatory bail · pre-arrest bail · cheating · criminal conspiracy · absconder · bail cancellation · settlement deed · non-compliance · Section 420 IPC · Section 34 IPC · parameters for anticipatory bail · habitual offender · non-cooperation with investigation