Delhi HC rejects anticipatory bail plea of goldsmith accused of misappropriating gold

New Delhi [India], June 20 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail of a goldsmith in a case of alleged misappropriation of part of the gold delivered to him for making jewellery. Economic Offence Wing (EOW) lodged an FIR in 2022.
A non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused, who had not joined the investigation. He was declared a proclaimed offender (PO).
Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the anticipatory bail of Jagdish Das and said that in the light of the cumulative circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail.
While rejecting the plea, the High Court observed, "Keeping in view the law and judicial precedents, anticipatory bail shall not be granted to a person who is a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC except in exceptional circumstances."
"The present case does not form an exceptional or extraordinary case where this discretionary power of the Court be used," Justice Dudeja held in the judgement passed on June 19.
The High Court also considered the status report filed by the police, which revealed that despite the orders of the trial Court, he failed to join the investigation and appear before it even after the issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 CrPC.
As per the allegations, the complainant-firm, Taj Exports, purchased 26 Kgs of gold of 24 karats from Yes Bank after paying a total amount of Rs 9,66,80,104. Bank delivered the purchased questioned gold bars through its hired companies to the authorized persons cum employees of alleged company M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited.
It is further alleged that the gold bars were handed over to Jagadish Das, the Director of M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited, for making jewellery.
It is also alleged that the accused Jagadish Das made jewellery of some gold, but he neither made jewellery of the balance of gold nor returned the same to the complainant, M/s Taj Exports.
During the arguements on plea, senior advocate Amit Chaddha appeared for Jagdish Das. He submitted that persons alleged to have received the gold were not the employees of the company of the petitioner.
It was submitted that 26 Kg of gold was never delivered to the petitioner. The same was delivered to some other persons, namely Arup Bhuiya and Ranjan Mitra, who are unrelated to the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) referred to the status report and submitted that petitioner is the Director of M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt Ltd and Arup Bhuiya and Ranjan Mitra are his associates/employees who were appointed by the petitioner to collect bullion on his behalf from the logistic services as apparent from the transactions of gold delivery details in the status report. (ANI)