Delhi High Court
Jagadish Das Through Its Parokar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 June, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 30th May, 2025
Pronounced on: 19th June, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 649/2025
JAGADISH DAS
THROUGH ITS PAROKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior
Counsel with Mr. Counsel
(appearance not given).
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail, filed on
behalf of petitioner in case FIR No. 88/2022 dated 06.07.2022,
Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi under Sections
409/420/120-B IPC.
2. As per the allegations, the complainant-firm, Taj Exports
purchased 26 Kgs gold of 24 karats from Yes Bank after paying total
amount of Rs. 9,66,80,104/-. Yes Bank delivered the purchased
questioned gold bars through its hired companies-M/s Brinks India
Private Limited and M/s Securitrans India Private Limited to the
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
authorized persons cum employees of alleged company-M/s Jewels
Creation Private Limited. The gold bars were handed over to Jagadish
Das, who is the Director of M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited for
making jewellery articles. The jewellery of 16131.440 Kgs of gold
was made out of 26 Kgs gold and handed over to complainant-firm.
Accused Jagadish Das neither made jewellery of the balance 9868.560
gms gold, nor returned the same to the complainant/firm-M/s Taj
Exports.
3. Petitioner did not join the investigation and evaded his arrest
and was declared a proclaimed person by the trial Court vide order
dated 23.10.2024. Section 174A IPC has also been invoked against the
petitioner. Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner under
Sections 409/420/174A IPC before the Court of learned CJM, Central
District.
4. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a renowned goldsmith with a
longstanding civil/commercial relationship with the complainant and
the dispute arose from a business dealing, thereby lacking criminal
intent. The FIR is alleged to be an abuse of criminal law for coercive
recovery. It has been submitted that persons alleged to have received
the gold were not the employees of the company of the petitioner. It is
submitted that 26 Kgs of gold was never delivered to the petitioner.
The same was delivered to some other persons, namely, Mr. Arup
Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra, who are unrelated to the petitioner. The
gold was delivered to the agents of the complainant i.e. Mr. Arup
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 2 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra through delivery partners of Yes Bank
i.e. M/s Brinks India Private Limited and M/s Securitrans India Private
Limited. Even though petitioner is a goldsmith and has business
dealings with the complainant since 2005, but had never taken the
delivery of gold from M/s Brinks India Private Limited and M/s
Securitrans India Private Limited. There is no documentary evidence
to substantiate any employer-employee relationship of the petitioner
with the persons who took the delivery of the alleged gold.
5. It is further submitted that complainant himself acknowledged
in a letter to the Investigating Officer, dated 03.10.2024 that he has
retained petitioner’s original property documents, pending the
settlement of dues, thereby indicating monetary dispute rather than
criminal wrong. Even before the registration of the FIR, the petitioner
lodged a complaint dated 26.03.2021 at Dum Dum Police Station,
Kolkata against the complainant regarding non return of property
documents. It is also submitted that complainant’s arrangement with
Yes Bank shows that multiple vendors, including the petitioner were
authorized to collect bullion, as confirmed from Axis Bank and
accompanying delivery challans.
6. It has been further submitted that prosecution served all the
processes viz notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C, NBWs, proclamation
under Section 82 Cr.P.C on the same address i.e. 203, R.N. Tagore
Road, Paragans, North Kolkata, West Bengal. Such premises has been
lying locked since last about 1.5 years and no one has been seen at the
house. It is submitted that charge sheet reflects that there are eight
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 3 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
other addresses of the petitioner available with the Investigating
Officer, but no warrants/notices or summons were served on those
addresses. Petitioner was unaware of the proceedings until February,
2025. The trial Court mechanically passed the order for issuance of
NBWs, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and wrongly declared the
petitioner as proclaimed person in a cavalier manner. The mandatory
procedure under Section 78 and 79 Cr.P.C. with regard to the service
of warrants was not adhered, and therefore, the entire proceedings are
vitiated.
7. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of State, while
referring to the status report, submits that petitioner is the Director of
M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Arup Bhuiya and Mr.
Ranjan Mitra are his associates/employees who were appointed by the
petitioner to collect bullion on his behalf from the logistic services of
M/s Brinks India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. as
apparent from the transactions of gold delivery details in the status
report. He contends that despite multiple follow-ups, petitioner failed
to return the remaining 9868.560 gms of gold to the complainant and
despite issuance of NBWs and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C,
he refused to appear before the Court, thereby portraying his cavalier
attitude and thus, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel submits that Constitutional
Courts can grant anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances and
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C does not create an absolute bar.
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 4 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
9. As per the status report, in the year 2019, the petitioner and his
wife Sutpa Das, being Directors of M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd.,
approached the complainant-firm for procurement of job-work of gold
jewellery. They assured to complete the job-work with sincerity and
without fault in preparing the jewellery articles. On their assurance,
complainant-firm agreed to allocate the job-work to the petitioner.
10. The complainant-firm allocated the job-work to the petitioner-
company from time to time. The investigation has revealed that
complainant-firm, which purchased 26 Kgs of gold from Yes Bank
delivered the gold bars through its hired companies i.e. M/s Brinks
India Private Limited and M/s Securitrans India Private Limited to
M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised persons cum
employees. Jewellery of 16131.440 Kgs of gold was made out of 26
Kgs gold and handed over to the complainant-firm but petitioner
neither made jewellery of the remaining 9868.560 gms of gold, nor
returned the same to the complainant-firm.
11. During investigation, the complainant-firm provided all the
relevant documents/delivery challans/ledgers regarding purchase of
gold from Yes Bank and its delivery to M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt.
Ltd. through its hired agencies i.e. M/s Brinks India Private Limited
and M/s Securitrans India Private Limited. The status report further
reveals that M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd sent the confirmation to
the complainant regarding receipt of questioned gold bars.
12. In reply to the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C, Yes Bank
confirmed that the complainant-firm had purchased 26 Kgs gold and
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 5 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
the purchased gold was delivered to the accused-company through its
two hired agencies i.e. M/s Brinks India Private Limited and M/s
Securitrans India Private Limited.
13. In reply to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C, M/s Brinks India
Private Limited sent reply and provided certified copy of delivery
challan. Status report reveals that as per the details/copies of
documents provided by M/s Brinks India Private Limited, 5 Kgs of
gold was delivered to Mr. Arup Bhuiya on behalf of complainant-firm.
Similarly, M/s Securitrans India Private Limited also sent a reply and
provided certified copies of three delivery challans. As per the
details/copies of documents provided by M/s Securitrans India Private
Limited, 4 Kgs gold was delivered to Mr. Ranjan Mitra on 20.02.2020,
10 Kgs gold was delivered to Mr. Arup Bhuiya on 27.02.2020 and 7
Kgs gold was delivered to Mr. Arup Bhuiya on behalf of complainant
firm.
14. Notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C were issued to Mr. Arup
Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra. They joined the investigation and got
recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In their
statements, they confirmed that they were employees of the accused-
company and have received the questioned gold from transport
companies as mentioned above and further handed over the same to
the petitioner-Mr. Jagadish Das for making jewellery articles.
15. Investigation reveals that petitioner-Jagadish Das was the active
Director of M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd and is also the beneficiary
of the questioned gold. He dishonestly misappropriated the questioned
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 6 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
gold and cheated the complainant-firm thereby causing wrongful loss
to the complainant-company and wrongful gain of 9868.560 gms of
gold to himself.
16. The allegations qua the petitioner are grave and serious in
nature. As per petitioner’s own averment in his application, a copy of
notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was sent on WhatsApp number of
his son. Thus, he was aware of the registration of FIR and pendency of
investigation but did not join the investigation. He may be required for
the purpose of custodial interrogation. The power to grant pre-arrest
bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary power and is to be
exercised sparingly. The anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a
routine manner.
17. As per State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, it is a well-
established legal principle that custodial interrogation is significantly
more effective for eliciting information compared to questioning an
accused who is protected by an anticipatory bail order under Section
438 Cr.P.C (Section 482 BNSS). Granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner at this stage would undeniably obstruct the course of further
investigation. Such relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine,
especially when it may be misused by the petitioner as a protective
shield against further investigation.
18. An additional factor to be taken into account is that proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner and he
was declared a proclaimed person. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay &
Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 28, the
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 7 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately examined the consequences of
being declared an absconder/Proclaimed person under Section 82
Cr.P.C. on the entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court clarified that
when a person is found to be deliberately avoiding arrest and has been
declared an absconder or proclaimed offender/person, it considerably
undermines their claim for pre-arrest bail/anticipatory bail. The
relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“9. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail
that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and
it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the
facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the
grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional
circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to
grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. is an
exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional
cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a
person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the
grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant.(See the decision of
this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan).
10. When a court grants anticipatory bail what it actually does is
only to make an order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee shall
be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions. Taking
note of the fact the said power is to be exercised in exceptional
circumstances and that it may cause some hindrance to the normal
flow of investigation method when called upon to exercise the
power under Section 438,CrPC, courts must keep reminded of the
position that law aides only the abiding and certainly not its
resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having subjected
to investigation on a serious offence and upon making out a case,
is included in a charge-sheet or even after filing of a refer report,
later, in accordance with law, the court issues a summons to a
person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. It
only means that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his
right, to take recourse to the legal remedies available only in
accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate this
discussion with reference to the factual matrix of this case.
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 8 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
However, we think that before dealing with the same, a small
deviation to have a glance at the scope and application of the
provisions under Section 82, Cr. P.C. will not be inappropriate.
XXX
25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail
is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that
bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and
the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and
judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said
power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of
interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases
may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to
tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be
understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim
protection pending consideration of such application as the Section
is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against
unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in
eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of
the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in
the interest of justice. But then, person(s)continuously, defying
orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.”
19. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:-
“12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the
present appellant was not available for interrogation and
investigation and declared as “absconder”. Normally, when the
accused is “absconding” and declared as a “proclaimed
offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We
reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been
issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in
terms of Section 82of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail.”
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 9 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State
of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 516 has observed as under:
“10.2. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the
fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that
Respondent 2-accused is absconding and even the proceedings
under Sections 82/83 CrPC have been initiated as far back as on
10-1-2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant
aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accused
by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a
business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc.
which came to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the
High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings
under Sections82/83CrPC by simply observing that “be that as it
may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail
ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to
have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not
casually.
10.3 In State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma [State of M.P. v. Pradeep
Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 : (2014)1 SCC (Cri) 768] , it is
observed and held by this Court that if anyone is declared as an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section82CrPC, he is
not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail…
XXX
11. Thus the High Court has committed an error in granting
anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accusedignoring the
proceedings under Sections 82/83CrPC.”
21. In the most recent decision in the case of Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda [2025 SCC OnLine SC 764],
very pertinent observation has been made with regard to the powers of
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 10 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It has been
observed that:-
“23. In view of the above settled legal position, it is no more res
integra that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they
have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds,
and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously. They are
considered as grave and serious offences affecting the economy of
the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the
financial health of the country. The law aids only the abiding and
certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a
chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case,
summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit
himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the
execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit
to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance
has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences of
heinous offences. In such cases when the court has reason to
believe that the person against whom the warrant has been issued
has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant could not
be executed, the concerned court would be perfectly justified in
initiating the proclamation proceedings against him under Section
82 Cr.P.C. The High Courts should also consider the factum of
issuance of non bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation
proceedings seriously and not casually, while considering the
anticipatory bail application of such accused.”
22. The status report reveals the consistent disobedience of the
petitioner to comply with the orders of the trial Court as he failed to
join the investigation and appear before it even after issuance of
NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., illustrating his
consistent disobedience. Keeping in view the law and judicial
precedents, anticipatory bail shall not be granted to person, who is a
proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C except in exceptional
circumstances. The present case does not form an exceptional or
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 11 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18
extraordinary case where this discretionary power of the Court be
used. In the light of cumulative circumstances, petitioner is not
entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail.
23. The present application is, therefore, dismissed. The pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
19 JUNE, 2025/ vd/AK
BAIL APPLN. 1183/2025 Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:19.06.2025
15:02:18