Citing past conduct, Delhi High Court denies bail to man in cheating case

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani considered the past conduct of the accused, Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, where he failed to pay the complainant as was decided while granting him bail earlier, and failed to appear before the magistrate after being released on bail, “so much so that non-bailable warrants had to be issued against him and proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC initiated”. The court held that it is “not persuaded to grant to the petitioner the benefit of regular bail even under Section 436-A of the CrPC at this stage”.

Tripathi sought bail in the cheating case lodged against him at Daryaganj police station in 2017. A chargesheet was filed against him in 2019 under IPC sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) as well as under sections 3 and 5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.

The complainant in the case, Mukesh Gupta, had claimed he was cheated of Rs 37 lakh by Tripathi. He alleged that the accused posed as a chairman of an organisation, under the name and style of ‘National Housing Development Organisation’, which used to float fake tenders for government contracts and would later illegally appropriate the earnest money deposits made by the parties without awarding any contracts to them.

It was further alleged that Tripathi’s purported organisation represented itself as an outfit of the Government of India (GoI) by posting on its own website, and other internet platforms, photographs of the Prime Minister and the Union Urban Development Minister. This was done with the aim and intent of luring people into believing his organisation was a GoI undertaking or a public sector undertaking or a similar entity that was in a position to award high-value government contracts.

He was granted bail in the Daryaganj case by a magistrate court in 2019, subject to him fulfilling the conditions of a settlement with the complainant by paying the latter. But he had failed to comply with the settlement, arguing that his bank accounts were being frozen in a different case; the court then cancelled his bail.

Tripathi had submitted before the HC that he is liable to be freed on bail as he has spent more than three years in jail in a case where the maximum punishment is seven years, and thus would be entitled to consideration under CrPC Section 436-A.