Delhi High Court
Ankur Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 July, 2022
$~26 & 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 07.07.2022
Pronounced on: 12.07.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 1911/2022 & CRL.M.A. 12581/2022
ANKUR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ruchi Kohli with Mr.
Yash Mishra, Mr. Anuj
Rathee, and Ms. Priya,
Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
SPP.
And
+ BAIL APPLN. 1909/2022 & CRL.M.A. 12579/2022
ANKUR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ruchi Kohli with Mr.
Yash Mishra, Mr. Anuj
Rathee, and Ms. Priya,
Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
SPP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC') on behalf of the
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
petitioner seeking interim bail in FIR No. RC-BDI/2008/E/0008,
dated 14.11.2008, registered under Section 120-B read with Sections
420/467/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof by the CBI at
P.S. CBI/BS&FC/DL.
2. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that
though the offences relate to the year 2008, the petitioner came to be
arrested in the present case only on 10.06.2021. It is also urged that
since charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for
any investigation in judicial custody.
3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, along
with his mother, Veena Aggarwal, is one of the partners in M/s
Krishna Chains & Jewellery Co. The petitioner and his mother have
been accused of having mortgaged Shops No. 12-14, Plot No. 1171,
Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi by using forged and bogus
documents. The aforementioned shops allegedly were also being used
as mortgage for obtaining credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 1.61
crores from the State Bank of Patiala, Darya Ganj Branch in 2006. It
is submitted that since Veena Aggarwal, who owned the aforesaid
properties, has already been released on regular bail by the Special
Court vide order dated 07.12.2021, the petitioner may be enlarged on
interim bail at the least, considering that he had a lesser role to play
in comparison to her. The aforementioned properties, besides
properties of the family members of the petitioner, have already been
auctioned, and a sum of Rs. 5.08 crores has been recovered by the
banks. It is further stated that the petitioner came to India on
04.07.2018 on voluntary departure from Canada, thereafter he was
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
arrested by the respondent from his brother's office on 01.04.2021 in
another case with regard to the loan taken from Punjab National
Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested by the respondent in
the present case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the medical
condition of the petitioner has gone from bad to worse. It is also
stated that the desired medical treatment could not be provided to the
petitioner and that the learned Vacation Judge vide an order dated
22.06.2022 had also directed the concerned Jail Authorities to take
the petitioner for MRI. However, the same has not taken place till
date. It is, therefore, now urged that the accused/petitioner be
released on bail for his medical treatment on any terms and
conditions as imposed by this Court.
5. It is also argued that there is no flight risk involved as far as
the present petitioner is concerned as co-accused, who was granted
bail, has also not misused the liberty of bail. It is also argued that it
was not due to any fault of the accused that he did not join the
investigation and it was purely negligence and mistake on the part of
the prosecution that he was not informed about pendency of criminal
investigation against him.
6. Learned SPP for the respondent opposes this bail application.
He submits that the petitioner, in conspiracy with Veena Aggarwal
and his father, Omkar Mal Aggarwal, had first obtained credit facility
from Allahabad Bank, when the shops, along with premises No. 13-
A, New Gupta Colony, New Delhi, were mortgaged and the title
deeds of the shops were submitted. Subsequently, the petitioner and
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
the co-accused persons fabricated the title documents of the shops
twice and by mortgaging the same, obtained loan facilities from the
State Bank of Patiala, Darya Ganj Branch and Punjab National Bank,
Sadar Bazar.
7. It is further submitted by the learned SPP that after committing
the offence, all the accused persons fled from India to Canada,
whereafter LOC was opened against them and they were deported
after much difficulty. It is also submitted that Omkar Mal Aggarwal
is still absconding and is currently in Canada.
8. Having heard both the parties and having perused the materials
placed on record, I am of the opinion that making a reference to the
decision of the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337 here would be pertinent wherein it
was observed as under:
"...21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors
are to be taken into consideration while considering an
application for bail:-
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the
materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses
or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the
witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his
abscondence;
(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations
[(Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi).]
22. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal
to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts
and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The
discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and
not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is
necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the
contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk"
of economic offenders should be looked at as a national
phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely
because certain other offenders have flown out of the
country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-
jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the
Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person
under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the
merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such
consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on
individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected
cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved."
9. It is clear from the record that the petitioner along with his
family had absconded and concealed himself, had not joined the
investigation for about 15 years by fleeing the country and even after
coming back from Canada, he remained elusive for almost 3 years.
The father of the petitioner, who is also a co-accused in the present
case, is still absconding. The allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature. He has defrauded the government banks of
approximately Rs. 8-9 crores, causing wrongful loss to public
exchequer.
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
10. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the rationale in the aforementioned decision of the Apex
Court, I am of the opinion that the present case of the petitioner does
not warrant grant of interim bail. The bail application of the
petitioner for interim bail is rejected.
11. However, it is also stated that the main concern of the learned
counsel for the petitioner/accused is that he is not being medically
treated to his satisfaction. The latest medical status report filed by the
Jail Authorities themselves also states that:
"...It is further submitted that due to recent episode of acute
onset of flank pain with burning micturition with urine
retention with hematuria with UTI and a follow up case of
Bilateral Nephrolithiasis, and his hypoxic chest condition
with dyspnea with acute exacerbation, anemia, he is getting
treatment but despite treatment inmate patient complaints
are still persisting and the condition of the inmate patient is
not improving..."
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants the accused to be
treated in a private hospital in Delhi which, according to her, will be
in a better position to treat him for his serious ailments.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent states that they have no
objection to the petitioner being treated at a private hospital as long
as he is kept in custody and pays for it.
14. Keeping in view the medical condition of the petitioner, his
latest status report, as well as the fact that he needs immediate
medical intervention, I deem it appropriate to order that the petitioner
be medically treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
(AIIMS), Delhi. Medical Superintendent of the hospital to file report
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
regarding his present medical status and course of treatment before
the Trial Court. Though the accused is in judicial custody, if his
medical condition warrants, he must be provided medical treatment
immediately from AIIMS as his medical condition has not shown any
improvement despite present medical facility extended to him.
Petitioner be taken to AIIMS within two days. Compliance report be
filed before Joint Registrar.
15. With the above observations, the bail applications and the
pending applications stand disposed of.
16. The Registry is directed to deliver a copy of this order to the
concerned Jail Superintendent as well as to the concerned trial court
today itself.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
JULY 12, 2022/zp
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:14.07.2022
15:46:34
