Delhi High Court
Ritesh Gupta vs State on 30 January, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 111/2017 & Crl.M.A. No.1100/2017
Date of Decision: 30th January, 2017
RITESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr.
Adv. with Mr.A.K. Vali, Adv. &
Mr.Achin Mittal, 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
Ritesh Gupta, his parents Mr.Ram Niwas & Ms.Renu Gupta,
Mr.Anand Singh Rawat, stating therein that the applicant along
with his parents Mr.Ram Niwas and 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, she created a
mortgage over the property bearing no.392, Deepali, Pitam Pura,
New Delhi and that 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 the applicant
is that on 27th March, 2010, sanction was granted by the Andhra
Bank to M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Pvt. Ltd. and that the property
bearing no.170, Deepali, Pitampura, owned by his father Shri Ram
Niwas Gupta and the property bearing No.392, Deepali, Pitampura,
owned by Smt.Saroj Jindal, were mortgaged with the bank and that
he was only a guarantor in the documents which was executed in
pursuance of the said sanction. It was further submitted that the
company secured additional ad-hoc facility of Rs.3.00 crores and
that the said amount was returned by the company and it was only
thereafter that the sanction advice dated 27th March, 2010 was
reinstated. It was further submitted that on 24th January, 2011, the
company further requested the bank to increase the sanction limit
from Rs.15.50 crores to Rs.20.00 crores, however, the sanction
advice had not been issued by the bank. It was further submitted
that the complainant Saroj Jindal illegally flouted the sanction
advice dated 27th March, 2010 and sold the entire property to
Mr.Pramod Kumar Aggarwal, for a consideration of Rs.17.71
crores and accepted Rs.5.50 crores as advance. It was next
contended that on 24th October, 2012, the complainant Saroj Jindal
and Mr.Pramod Kumar Aggarwal entered into a subsequent
supplementary agreement to sell acknowledging the mortgage of
property being 392, Deepali, Pitampura and on 27th April, 2013,
the account of the company was declared by the Bank as Non-
Performing Asset on the balance amount of Rs.16.61 crores as a
result of which the existing limit for a sum of Rs.15.50 crores
issued by the Bank, as availed by the company, existed.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has further
submitted that on the basis of sanctioned advice dated 24th January,
2011, the Andhra Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act. It was next contended that the complainant
enjoyed the interim protection granted by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal and it was only when the stay order was vacated on 1st
August, 2014, the complainant fabricated the false story and got
the FIR registered on 30th September, 2014.
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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on
instructions of the investigating officer present in court, has
submitted that though the accused has been absconding and
proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. are going on, but since
the role of the applicant is only guarantor, he is not required for the
purpose of custodial interrogation. The investigating officer has
further stated that so far as the signatures on the documents which
are alleged to be forged, are concerned, the report of the CFSL is
lying pending.
9. From the material placed on record and the submissions
made, the only role assigned to the petitioner is that he was the
guarantor of the loan advanced to the company of which his father
and others were directors/promoters. It is not specifically alleged
against the petitioner that he committed any forgery of the
documents. Even otherwise, as per the statement of the learned
prosecutor, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of
custodial interrogation.
10. In the above facts and circumstances and the fact that the
role of the applicant is only guarantor and he is neither the director
nor the shareholder of the company, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Ritesh Gupta, subject to his
joining the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer.
11. In view of the facts of this case, it is hereby ordered that in
the event of arrest, the petitioner - Ritesh gupta be released on bail
subject to his furnishing of personal bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the arresting officer.
12. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and
when required and to cooperate in the investigation of the present
case. He is directed not to influence the prosecution witness and
tamper with the evidence. He is further directed not to leave the
country without prior permission of the concerned Court.
13. 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.
14. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
JANUARY 30, 2017/aa
