Delhi High Court
Yogesh Gupta vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 3rd August, 2018
Decided on: 17th August, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1613/2018
YOGESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev
Aggarwal, Mr. P.K. Aggarwal,
Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr.Ekansh
Aggarwal and Mr.Akshat
Aggarwal, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with
ACP Naresh Kumar, Operation
Cell, Central District.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.72/2017
under Sections 420/409/468/471/201/120-B IPC registered at PS Rajinder
Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been in custody for nearly ten months now since 29th September, 2017 and is
no more required for investigation. Co-accused Subhash Jindal has already
been granted bail. The prime accused Narinder Jain is absconding till date
and has not joined the investigation, thus trial is likely to take some time. In
any case the main role is of Narinder Jain and Jitender Kumar and the
petitioner has been deliberately roped therein. No complaint has been
lodged by the bank that M/s Arihant Traders defrauded or cheated the bank.
The loan secured by the bank was by lawful means. The petitioner is a
professional being a Chartered Accountant, there is no other criminal
involvement and no likelihood of his fleeing away from justice, thus bail be
granted to him.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that Jitender
Kumar was only a driver of one Naveen Arora, known to the petitioner. The
entire fictitious accounts etc. were opened by the petitioner. M/s Arihant
Traders is the firm belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner got prepared fake
election voter card in the name of Jitender Kumar on the fake address
changing his father's name and also double Pan cards were got prepared. It
is the petitioner who opened the fictitious firm M/s Arihant Traders in the
name of Jitender Kumar. The actual conspiracy was between the petitioner
herein and Narinder Jain and despite the original documents lying with the
bank the property was sold to the complainant. The petitioner is the
beneficiary of maximum amount routed through the other firms which were
fictitious. The petitioner in connivance with the other co-accused and the
bank officials got sanctioned credit limit of ₹6.40 crores in favour of M/s
Arihant Traders. The petitioner was also the guarantor of the transaction.
As is evident from the documents the petitioner was the controlling authority
of M/s Arihant Traders which bear his email address and mobile phone
numbers.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The above noted FIR was
registered on the complaint of Gautam Khattar against Yogesh Gupta,
Narinder Jain, Pradeep Aggarwal and Punjab National Bank, Tropical
Building alleging that in the month of April, 2016, one Narinder Jain
approached him in his office at H-236, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for
selling the property in question i.e. Plot No.752, Udyog Vihar, Phase V,
Gurugram, Haryana. When the complainant demanded the chain of original
documents for the purpose of verification from Narinder Jain, he told him
that there was a dispute between Manju Sehjpal and him in respect of the
above stated property, that he was in dire need of money and he had applied
for a loan from one mediator Pradeep Aggarwal from Punjab National Bank,
Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi and the same was rejected on the
ground of a letter given by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation (HSIIDC) regarding rejection of permission to
mortgage as the property in question was in dispute. Narinder Jain also told
that after rejection of the loan from the bank, Pradeep Aggarwal introduced
him to Yogesh Gupta who gave him a personal loan for ₹55,00,000/- and
kept the original chain of documents of the property in question with the
assurance to him that the documents shall be returned when the private loan
is cleared. It was thus alleged that on the misrepresentation and assurance of
Narinder Jain, that original documents shall be handed over to him on return
of money, the deal was finalized for a sum of ₹2.25 crores for the property
in question after which Narinder Jain introduced him to Yogesh Gupta with
a mala fide intention wherein Yogesh Gupta admitted that the original chain
of documents were lying with him against his loan amount of ₹55,00,000/-
and with interest, the total amount due was ₹1 crore. Thereafter the registry
of the property in question was prepared in the joint name of the
complainant and his brother on 9th June, 2016 by Narinder Jain after
fulfilling all the formalities of HSIIDC and final transfer letter was also
issued in his favour. He was also shown a written complaint by Narinder
Jain dated 26th February, 2017 against Yogesh Gupta. Later he came to
know that Yogesh Gupta in connivance with the concerned Branch Manager
of Punjab National Bank, Connaught Place has been able to procure a loan
of huge amount on the basis of original documents and thus lodged the FIR
in question.
5. From the statement of the complainant it is evident that despite the
fact that the original documents of the property, that is, Plot No. 752, Udyog
Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana were mortgaged with the bank, the
petitioner continued to represent that the documents were in his possession
thereby induced him to part with the payment as noted above. For securing
the loan on the strength of the original documents of the property in question
the petitioner forged several documents. However, considering the fact that
the petitioner has been in custody for the last ten months now and one of the
co-accused is yet to be arrested, the evidence is primarily documentary in
nature and the trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it fit to
grant bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1 lakh with
one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court further subject to the condition that he will not leave the country
without the prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of
address will intimate the same to the Court concerned by way of an
affidavit.
6. Petition is disposed of.
7. Order dasti.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2018
'vn'
