The non-disclosure of the information by Chaittnya Aggarwal, about the investment of the MP Kirron Kher’s money and direct refusal to come to the court are the circumstances which went against him, as the court dismissed his anticipatory bail application today.
The court, however, clarified that the dismissal shall not empower the police to arrest the accused in violation of the directions as given by the Supreme Court of India.
An FIR was filed on December 16 on the complaint by Kirron Kher wherein she reported that in August, she gave ₹8 crore to him for investment. It was promised that he will return this amount within a month along with interest of 18%. But he only returned ₹2 crore and fake cheques.
The order by the court of additional sessions judge mentioned that the court had asked Chaittnya’s counsel to call him to the Court so that he could be ordered to join the investigation, if required, after granting him the interim protection from the arrest. However, the counsel “straightway refused” stating that he has gone to Vrindavan.
When the Court asked for the reason why ₹8 crore was taken or why he was hesitating in disclosing the fact that where the money has been invested, the reply was that he is ready to return the remaining ₹6 crore by January 31, 2024.”
{{/usCountry}}When the Court asked for the reason why ₹8 crore was taken or why he was hesitating in disclosing the fact that where the money has been invested, the reply was that he is ready to return the remaining ₹6 crore by January 31, 2024.”
{{/usCountry}}“Instead of replying to the queries of the court, the applicant’s counsel has repeatedly stated that the case of the prosecution is politically motivated. From the applicant’s conduct and from the arguments being advanced by his counsel, it is clear that he does not want to co-operate in the investigation and is trying to take advantage of the fact that the complainant in this case is a political person,” court observed.
The court opined that even the politically active persons are also entitled for the protection of laws and no presumption can be drawn that a complaint made by a politically active person is false
Chaittnya has admitted obtaining money from Kher’s PA 2-3 times earlier also but under what authority he does so is not explained even during the course of arguments. “From this, it appears that the applicant/accused initially allures the persons by giving them heavy returns and thereafter when a huge amount is given by them to him, he grabs that amount,” the court observed.
The judge observed that non-disclosure of the information by the applicant/accused (Chaittnya) about the investment of the Kher’s money and straightway refusal on the part to come to the Court are the circumstances which go against the applicant and in the considered opinion of this Court such person should not be granted the concession of anticipatory bail merely on the ground that the complainant in the case is a politically active person.
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant/accused.