Ram Niwas Gupta vs State
2017 Latest Caselaw 531 Del

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+          BAIL APPLN. 140/2017 & Crl.M.A. No.1315/2017
                                    Date of Decision: 30th January, 2017


     RAM NIWAS GUPTA                                         ..... Petitioner
                 Through                  Mr.Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr.
                                          Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Dubey,
                                          Adv. & Mr.Abhishek Chauhan,
                                          Adv.


                          versus

     STATE                                                   ..... Respondent

                          Through         Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
                                           with Mr.Rishi Pal, DCP, Outer
                                          District, Mr.Arvind Kumar, SHO
                                          & SI Amit.
                                          Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
                                           Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Adv. &
                                          Mr.Dinesh Jindal, Complainant in
                                          person.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

     P.S. TEJI, J

1. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the

applicant in a case arising out of FIR No.1794/14 lodged on 30th

September, 2014 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the

Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mangolpuri.

2. The facts as emerge from the records, are that the

complainant Saroj Jindal lodged an FIR against the applicant

Mr.Ram Niwas, his wife Ms.Renu Gupta, his son namely

Mr.Ritesh Gupta and Mr.Anand Singh Rawat, stating therein that

the applicant along with his wife Ms.Renu Gupta floated a

company in the name of M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries

Private Limited and obtained a loan from Andhara Bank,

Pitampura Branch, New Delhi and mortgaged the property bearing

no.170, Deepali, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. The complainant stated

that with the consent of her husband and under the trust of her

brother-in-law namely Mr.Ram Niwas Gupta (applicant herein),

she created a mortgage over the property bearing no.392, Deepali,

Pitam Pura, New Delhi and that the applicant Sh.Ram Niwas

Gupta, being the promoter Director and the shareholder of the

company, obtained a fresh loan from Andhra Bank to the tune of

Rs.15.50 crores which was sanctioned on 27th March, 2010. On

the said date itself, the complainant executed the required

documents for availing the loan facility and alleged that she was

unaware of any enhancement of the loan amount. Upon being

served notice under SARFAESI Act by the Andhra Bank, the

complainant received the information regarding recalling of the

loan facility. It was further alleged by the complainant in the FIR

that on the same date of recalling of the loan, the amount due had

been sufficient to clear the dues of the bank for the sale of property

bearing no.170, Deepali, Pitampura. Thereafter, for the purpose of

recovery of dues, the bank had filed an Original Application

No.116/2014 copy whereof was supplied to the complainant Saroj

Jidnal on 12th September, 2014. The complainant has alleged that

the bank has claimed the amount on the basis of enhancement of

loan facility from 27th March, 2010 by granting an ad-hoc facility

of Rs.3.00 crores on 20th August, 2010 as well as further executing

documents with respect to letter of sanction dated 24th January,

2011 for an amount of Rs.20.00 cores sanctioned by Chief

Manager of the Andhara Bank. The complainant has stated that

the signatures on the guarantee form from pages 132 to 135 of the

original application filed by the Bank, are forged and fabricated

and that the complainant Saroj Jindal never executed any such

documents. It was alleged that the accused persons including the

applicant herein, have caused wrongful loss to the complainant and

wrongful gain to themselves. The complainant in the FIR further

alleged that the hand writing expert had submitted a report to the

effect that the signatures on the documents dated 20th August, 2010

and 24th January, 2011 are not same.

3. Arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the

applicant is that the FIR the applicant has already joined the

investigation. The applicant, seeing the financial condition,

associated his younger brother namely Mr.Dinesh Jindal (husband

of the complainant Ms.Saroj Jindal) in his company as a result of

which Mr.Dinesh Jindal started deriving benefits out of company

and the complainant offered her property being 392, Deepali,

Pitampura, for mortgage for the purpose of obtaining credit

facilities. It was submitted that the property of the applicant i.e.

170, Deepali, Pitampura, was also mortgaged with the said Bank.

4. Learned senior counsel further submits that the complainant

Ms.Saroj Jindal herself admitted the factum of the mortgage and

that the FIR was lodged by her to escape from the liability of the

bank and cheat the company against the outstanding amount of

Rs.3,60,50,255/- which stood against the husband of the

complainant. The forgery in the documents has been falsified by

the bank officials in their affidavit given before the court. It was

further submitted that the applicant had already surrendered the

physical possession of his property i.e. 170, Deepali, Pitampura

and that he had offered to settle the alleged due of the bank at an

amount more than the NPA amount. It was next contended that the

complainant and her husband Mr.Dinesh Jindal, entered into an

agreement to sell dated 5th September, 2012 in order to sell their

property, with Mr.Pramod Kumar Garg acknowledging and

apprising the buyer about the mortgage of property being 392,

Deepali, Pitampura and that the complainant in the bail application

had admitted that prior to the entering into the agreement to sell,

the husband of the complainant and the prospective buyer visited

the Andhra Bank and, therefore, the allegation in the FIR to the

effect that subsequent sanction advices dated 20th August, 2010 &

24th October, 2011 came to their knowledge only after serving of

certain documents from Andhra Bank, cannot be believed. It is

further contended that even the sanction advice dated 20th August,

2010 was lapsed due to company returning the availed facilities

within time and that the sanction advice dated 24th January, 2011

was not implemented meaning thereby that no benefit was derived

and that the complainant was not harmed thereby.

5. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the

applicant relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sobran

Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (11) SCALE 520; Jagdish Nautiyal

Vs. State 2013 [1] JCC 311; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State

of Gujarat & Anr. (2016) 1 SCC 152 & Arnesh Kumar Vs. State

of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273.

6. In the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), it was

observed that Section 438 Cr.P.C. gives direction to the Court to

exercise the power in a particular case or not, and once such a

discretion is there merely because the accused is charged with a

serious offence may not by itself be the reason to refuse the grant

of anticipatory bail if the circumstances are otherwise justified.

7. In the case of Jagdish Nautiyal (supra) and Sobran Singh

(supra), it was observed that the totality of circumstances deserve

to be seen before a person is granted or denied the anticipatory

bail. In the case of Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) it was

observed that Courts should be loath to reject the grant of

anticipatory bail inasmuch as it impinges on the personal liberty of

a person and unless and until there is an imminent and a great

imperative to have a custodial interrogation of an accused, the

anticipatory bail does not deserve to be denied.

8. Per contra, learned APP for the State has submitted that the

allegations are serious in nature against the applicant inasmuch as

crores of rupees were involved in this forgery case. It was further

submitted by him that the applicant herein is the director/promoter

of the company and was the direct beneficiary on enhancement of

credit facility by the bank. Forgery in the documents was

revealed during the course of investigation and custodial

interrogation of the applicant is required so that the maker of the

forged signatures of the complainant could be unearthed.

9. As per the allegations levelled in the present case, the

applicant/petitioner is the director of the company which availed

credit facility from the bank. It is specifically alleged against the

petitioner that he mortgaged the property of the complainant and

subsequently the credit facility was enhanced on the basis of

documents of the property of the complainant which were

subsequently found to be forged one. Due to this reason, the

complainant is in loss of her property as well as money as the bank

has initiated recovery proceeding by attaching the property of the

complainant.

10. In view of the seriousness of the allegations levelled as well

as the fact that crores of rupees of the secured creditor i.e. Bank is

at stake and the forgery of documents, this court does not find this

a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

11. In view of the above scenario, the present bail application is

dismissed.

12. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place

it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been

stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the

purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.

Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of

a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for

decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the

Trial Court seized of the trial.

13. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

P.S.TEJI, J JANUARY 30, 2017/aa