Delhi High Court
Rajesh Garg vs The State And Another on 3 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1273/2017
Order Reserved On: 05th December, 2017
Order Pronounced On: 03rd January, 2018
RAJESH GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Tamta Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mittal, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for State,
Ms. Pratibha, Advocate for R-2 with
respondent No.2/AR Suneela Sangwan in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), the
petitioner seeks Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 55/2011 under
Section 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station
Connaught Place, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged on
24.03.2011 by one Jagbir Singh/complainant, acting in the capacity
of duly authorized reprsentative of M/s. Indiabulls Financial
Services Limited, against the petitioner and several other accused
persons. The complainant alleged that in August 2010 one Ajay
Mehra/accused alongwith four other co-accused persons had
approached the complainant's company for sanction of a Business
Loan to a tune of Rs. 35 Lakhs and had furnished an application
form along with duly executed Demand Promissory Note,
Declaration and certain other documents in favour of the
complainant's company. In order to further prove their credentials
the accused persons had also submitted documents which include
self attested photocopies of PAN Card, ITR, Registered General
Power of Attorney etc. The complainant's company had sanctioned
a loan amount of Rs.12,29,240/- in favour of the accused persons
which was to be repaid in twenty equated monthly installments of
Rs.72,781/- each. The accused persons however defaulted the very
first installment which was due on 1st October 2010. On this the
officials of the complainant's company visited the address provided
by the accused persons but found that they had submitted false and
fabricated documents as regards the ownership of the said promises
which in fact belonged to some other person namely Rajesh
Sharma/owner and the accused persons were merely tenants in the
said property. The complainant further found that the accused
persons had sought help from one Sahib Ali/co-accused to create
fabricated G.P.A. and such other documents in respect of that
property in order to get loan from the complainant's company.
Thereafter the present petitioner approached one executive of the
complainant's company on behalf of the other accused persons and
offered Rs. 9 Lakhs as full and final settlement against the loan
amount of Rs.12,29,240/-. The complainant alleged that all the
accused persons as named in the FIR have hatched a conspiracy
with malafide attention to cheat the complainant's company. Hence
the present complaint.
3. The petitioner has previously filed an anticipatory bail application
before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and the same was
dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2017.
4. Mr. Satish Tamta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case and is apprehending his arrest; that the petitioner is not
aware of any loan taken by the accused persons from the
complainant's company and has neither visited or met with the
executive or officials of the complainant's company; that there is
no role of the petitioner in connection with the subject FIR as he is
not the signatory to the loan documents; that there is no prima facie
evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence; that the
petitioner has been joining investigation as and when required and
undertakes to cooperate in the same in future; that in the aforesaid
circumstances the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail as
prayed for.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the
petitioner and submitted that there are allegations against the
petitioner that he has approached the complainants company to
settle the loan amount on behalf of the other co-accused persons
which point towards the active role played by him in the
commission of the alleged offence; that the petitioner is also
involved in a similar case bearing FIR No.89/2008
registered under Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/506/174A IPC
in which he has been chargesheeted as an accused in Column
No.11; that hence in the said circumstances the present petition be
dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. In the present case, the accused Ajay Mehra alongwith others had
taken a Business loan of Rs.12,29,240/- from the complainant's
company by furnishing certain documentary proof of ownership in
respect of a property which in fact is owned by one Rajesh Sharma
and the accused persons in whose favour the loan was sanctioned
were only tenants in the said property. Rent agreement dated
01.08.2008 executed by Rajesh Sharma in favour of accused Ajay
Mehra has been placed on record.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner and accused Ajay Mehra were
good friends and that the petitioner himself was not a signatory to
the alleged loan transaction. But the only role attributed to the
petitioner in the entire alleged transaction is that in order to get the
matter settled he approached one Ashish Singh/executive of the
complainant's company on behalf of the accused persons and
offered Rs. 9 Lakhs as full and final settlement against the loan
amount of Rs.12,29,240/-.
9. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail,
subject to the following conditions:
i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount
subject to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/SHO
concerned;
ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the
investigation and make himself available for
interrogation by police officer as and when required;
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
11. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
12. Copy of this Order be given dasti, under the signatures of the Court
Master.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL.J
JANUARY 3, 2018
