Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 09/2024 State v Tribhuvan @ Tarun Page 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF CHANDER JIT SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, N.D.D. PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 09/2024
PS : Cyber, South West, New Delhi
State v Tribhuvan @ Tarun
03.10.2024
Present:- Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Adhir Jha, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
Tribhuvan @ Tarun.
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of application seeking
anticipatory bail filed u/s 482 of BNSS on behalf of
accused/applicant Tribhuvan @ Tarun
2. It is contended in the application filed on behalf of
accused/applicant that in the year 2021, applicant/accused was hired
as Field Executive and was assigned miscellaneous work such as to
collect cash from customers, withdraw cash from account of owner of
abovesaid shops by using self cheques. That while withdrawing self
cheques, applicant has to submit his Aadhar Card in the bank. That on
19.04.2024 when applicant was present at the shop M/s S.K. Traders,
police officials of PS Shahdara came to the shop and inquired from the
employees about applicant as well as seized mobile phone and Aadhar
Card.
2.1 That applicant attempted to contact Munish Bansal who
inducted accused; and other Manager of the shops but the numbers
-- 1 of 4 --
FIR No. 09/2024 State v Tribhuvan @ Tarun Page 2 of 4
were switched off. Later, he found that Munish Bansal is absconding.
That three months’ salary of applicant is still due from Munish Bansal.
That applicant is the only bread earner of his family. That applicant is
permanent resident of Delhi and there are no chance of his
absconding. It is further contended that applicant is ready to abide by
all the conditions put in by the court. Hence, present application.
3. Upon notice, reply is filed on behalf of State contending
that complainant is duped of Rs. 28,40,400/- and out of that, Rs. 5
lakhs was credited in Equitas Bank account in the name of Krishan
Singh. That efforts are made to trace Krishan Singh but did not bear
any fruit. Similarly, owner of mobile number mentioned in the
abovesaid bank account is also untraceable. That applicant did not join
investigation despite notice. That Rs. 6 lakhs were withdrawn through
cheques by applicant/accused Tribhuvan. That shop address which is
mentioned in the alleged bank account was taken on rent by Manpreet
Singh. That applicant/accused used to open mule accounts along with
co-accused Manpreet Singh and Munish Bansal. That custodial
interrogation of applicant/accused is required to arrest/apprehend co-
accused Manpreet Singh and Munish Bansal. It is contended that
application be dismissed.
4. Having heard the contentions of both the parties and gone
through the record, this court is to weigh between contentions of
applicant/accused that he was simply a Field Executive who was
acting on behalf of one of the accused Munish Bansal and contention
-- 2 of 4 --
FIR No. 09/2024 State v Tribhuvan @ Tarun Page 3 of 4
on behalf of State that amount was withdrawn by applicant/accused
and the recovery of the same is to be made as well as co-accused are
also to be apprehended. It is one of the contention on behalf of State
that applicant/accused did not join the investigation whereas,
applicant/accused submitted that he was called to different places but
for the police station. It is the contention of applicant/accused that he
used to work for M/s S.K. Traders, whereas, the account in question
from where money is withdrawn is in the name of one Krishan Singh.
It is also stated on behalf of State that applicant/accused is required in
another case of similar kind. This contention of State is not refuted on
behalf of applicant/accused. Report filed by the IO also states that
said Krishan Singh is not traceable at the address mentioned with the
bank nor the owner of the mobile phone number mentioned in the
bank account is traceable. All these facts cumulatively shows that to
reach at the root of the present matter, custodial interrogation of
applicant/accused seems to be necessary as except for custodial
interrogation of applicant/accused, investigating agency does not have
any other lead. The contention of applicant/accused that he was being
called to other places besides the police station also seems to be less
believable. But, for argument sake if this contention is accepted, still
applicant/accused had an option to report in police station concerned
and could have marked his presence with the Senior Officers,
however, applicant/accused chose not to do it.
5. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the bail
-- 3 of 4 --
FIR No. 09/2024 State v Tribhuvan @ Tarun Page 4 of 4
application is dismissed.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Jit Singh)
Bail Roster Judge/ASJ-03/
PHC/ND/03.10.2024
-- 4 of 4 --