Delhi High Court
Harsh Newar vs State on 14 February, 2022
$~8 &13 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 14th February, 2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1482/2021
HARSH NEWAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Amit Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Arshdeep
Singh, Mr.Aditya Chopra,
Mr.Tapan Masta, & Mr.Aditya
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State with SI Ajay Singh, PS
Pahar Ganj.
Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
for the Complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 4516/2021
CRL.M.A. 21006/2021
NARAINI NEWAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arshdeep Singh, Advocate
with Mr.Aditya Chopra,
Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State with SI Ajay Singh, PS
Pahar Ganj.
Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
for the Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 1 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
JUDGMENT: (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.
1. By these two petitions, petitioners who are mother and son seek
anticipatory bail in FIR No.308/2017 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC
registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
complainant is the brother-in-law of Naraini Newar and paternal uncle
of Harsh Newar. Both the families were having joint business which
got separated pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/
Dissolution Deed arrived at between the parties. Neither the terms nor
the execution of the MOU/Dissolution Deed are disputed. However, it
is alleged that the date in the said MOU has been forged and though
the MOU was dated 11th September, 2001, which fact is admitted by
the petitioners in various proceedings however, the same was posted
on 3rd September, 2000 which postal receipts are also forged and
fabricated. The petitioners have joined the investigation and no further
recovery is to be made from the petitioners. Besides lodging of the
FIR, the complainant also filed a suit for specific performance of the
Memorandum of Understanding and grant of damages which was
dismissed as barred by limitation and having failed in the said attempt,
the above-noted FIR was got registered.
3. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court through the FIR
and claims that during the investigation the endorsement on the postal
receipts was found to be forged and fabricated. An expert opinion has
been received from the Truth Lab as per which the writing and
signatures on the questioned document and the admitted documents
tally and thus the petitioners forged the questioned documents.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 2 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
4. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that by
utilising this forged and fabricated documents, the petitioners caused a
serious financial loss to the complainant to the tune of approximately
₹2 crores and since the investigation reveals that the petitioner forged
the documents, anticipatory bail be not granted to them.
5. The above-noted FIR was registered on 9th October, 2017 on the
complaint of Kailash Newar who stated that he is the Director of M/s
Sarda Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (in short „M/s Sarda‟) and
guarantor of M/s Exho Exports, New Delhi (in short „M/s Exho‟)
against various credit facilities/loans provided by the Bank of
Rajasthan, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and his sister-in-law Ms.Naraini
Newar was one of the partners of M/s Exho. In the year 2001 the
account of M/s Exho was declared a non-performing asset (NPA) and
thus the bank filed recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT) bearing OA No.210/2002. The complainant along
with his brother Satish Newar, husband of Naraini Newar was carrying
on family business jointly. Since the dispute arose between the
parties, to resolve the dispute MOU dated 11th September, 2001 was
entered into between them. In terms of the MOU, M/s Exho came to
the share of Seema Newar, wife of the complainant and other firm M/s
Excellent Hosiery Products (in short „M/s Excellent‟) came to the
share of Satish Newar, husband of Naraini Newar. M/s Sarda had
given the guarantee against loans taken by both these firms.
6. It is further alleged that on 25th January, 2012 the complainant
received certified copies of some documents which reveal that Naraini
Newar in collusion with her son Harsh Newar and husband Satish
Newar filed forged and fabricated postal receipts and Dissolution Deed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 3 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
along with the false affidavit before the DRT. The complainant stated
that Ms.Naraini Newar claimed before DRT that she had sent the
dissolution deed of M/s Exho to Bank of Rajasthan through letter
posted against alleged postal receipts dated 3rd September, 2001
whereas the Dissolution Deed itself is dated 11th September, 2001 and
was notarised on 11th September, 2001. Thus the Xerox copy of the
document executed on 11th September, 2001 could not have been sent
on 3rd September, 2001. Further the postal receipt dated 3rd
September, 2001 by which it is claimed that the dissolution deed was
sent to Bank of Rajasthan is also forged for the reason it mentions
"Received a registered insured" despite the fact that the same was not
insured and the endorsement was manual whereas Civil Lines post
office was issuing computerised postal receipt against booking of
Registered AD letters since the year 2001. Further on 24th April, 2004
the accused persons published a public notice in the newspaper „The
Statements‟ stating that the Dissolution Deed of M/s Exho was
executed on 11th September, 2001.
7. The petitioners had applied for the anticipatory bail before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and since at that stage the
investigation was at its initial stage and the petitioners were not
required to be arrested the anticipatory bail petitions were disposed of
vide order dated 12th April, 2018 directing the Investigating Officer to
serve a five days notice to the petitioners in case they are required to
be arrested. The investigation from the post office was also conducted
wherein it was replied from the Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Delhi North Division stating that when computers remain out of order
then post office concerned issues manual receipts subject to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 4 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
availability of printed receipt books. However, the records being
weeded out it cannot be stated that on the said date the computers were
functioning or not and it could not be verified that the manual receipt
No.530 dated 3rd September, 2001 was executed or not as the record
had been weeded out. Statement of concerned officer was also
recorded who denied his signatures on the postal receipt.
8. As noted above, the contents of the Dissolution Deed are not
disputed and both the parties claimed that the same was executed on
11th September, 2001 however, on one of the copies under the
signatures of Naraini Newar the date of 28th August, 2001 has been
mentioned and the Xerox copy of the document was sent to the
concerned bank vide the registered AD dated 3rd September, 2001.
Since the FIR was registered on 9th October, 2017 and the petitioners
have been joining the investigation since then, no further recovery is
required to be made from the petitioners and the evidence is
documentary in nature which documents have already been collected,
this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
9. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest the petitioners
be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with one surety
bond each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that
the petitioners will join the investigation as when directed by the
Investigating Officer. The petitioners will not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change
of residential and/or mobile phone number, till the filing of the charge-
sheet the same will be intimated to the Investigating Officer and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 5 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
thereafter to the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit.
10. Petitions and applications are disposed of.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
'vn'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 4266/2021 & connected matter Page 6 of 6 MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:17.02.2022
19:45:00
