Sunil Moolchandani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4288 MP

                                 1                          MCRC-36299-2021
       The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 MCRC-36299-2021
             (SUNIL MOOLCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

4
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Ankit Saxena, counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Yogesh Mishra, P.L. for the State.
      Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant- Sunil Moolchandani, who has been

in custody since 29.06.2021 in connection with crime no.8/2021
registered by P.S.-Misrod, District-Bhopal (M.P.), for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with
section 34 of the IPC.
      The prosecution story, in short, is that five persons made a written
complaint to the police. The complaint which was translated into an FIR
bearing crime No. 08/2021 reveals that the said five complainants are
joint owners of 23.07 hectares of land, in regard to which a joint venture

agreement was entered into with the company of petitioner herein and co-
accused Gopichand Moolchandani on 07.07.2009 followed by a
correction agreement, entered into on 01.08.2017 with the object of the
petitioner and co-accused developing multi-storey residential colony on
the said land. The complaint further reveals that petitioner and co-
accused initially obtained project loan from DHFL of Rs.44 crores
which was later enhanced to Rs. 63 crores. To secure the said loan, the
said land of complainants was mortgaged. However, the grievance of
complainants is that the said loan amount received by petitioner and co-
accused was misappropriated and not used for the purpose for which it
was taken i.e. construction of said multi-storey residential colony. The
complaint/FIR further alleges that complainants later came to know that
                                  2                         MCRC-36299-2021
petitioner and co-accused had surreptitiously, without taking into
confidence the complainants, increased the loan borrowed to Rs.100
crores. The complaint/FIR further alleged that out of 478 flats promised
to be constructed latest by 2014 only 77 flats were constructed that too in
incomplete state. It was further alleged that petitioner and co-accused are

pressurizing complainants/owners to execute sale-deed knowing very
well that petitioner and co-accused have no title over the land in
question. It was lastly alleged that by exercise of forgery initial loan
amount of Rs.44 crores was unilaterally enhanced to Rs.100 crores
thereby increasing the charge over the property belonging to the
complainants and during this process misappropriating the loan amount
for unlawful purposes by failing to utilize the same in construction of
multi-storey residential colony as agreed to by the petitioner and co-
accused. It is also alleged that these unlawful actions of the petitioner
and co-accused caused financial loss to the complainants, by exercise of
cheating and forgery.
      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused
person namely Gopichand Moolchandani has already been granted the
benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide Court order dated
13.05.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2700/2021. It is further submitted by
the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has deposited all the
embezzled amount which he has defrauded in the said offence. It is
further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is a civil suit
pending between the rival parties and complainants are attempting to
give criminal colour to an issue which predominantly is civil in nature of
cheating and forgery. It is further submitted by the counsel for the
applicant that the amount of Rs.100 crores as alleged in the incident has
                                 3                         MCRC-36299-2021
never been disbursed by the DHFL to the company and therefore, no
offence can be made out against the applicant. It is further submitted by
the counsel for the applicant that in the entire case, company is not made
as an accused, therefore, unless the company is not made an accused, the
criminal liability cannot be enforce against the present applicant. The
applicant is a reputed citizen of the city and no seizure has been made
from the applicant by the State and therefore, no custodial interrogation is
required in the light of the judgment passed in the case of M.C. Abrahim
Vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649. The applicant further
contends that from all the transactions which have been alleged in the

FIR, it is the applicant and the company, who has invested its entire
property and projects are mortgaged with the DHFL and a huge amount
has already been paid to the complainant. The applicant is in custody
since 29.06.2021. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant
that he is ready to furnish any condition as may be imposed by this Court,
therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
      Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State has vehemently

opposed the bail application. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that he is the kingpin in the embezzlement. He is the main accused, who has committed a huge amount of frauds and defrauded the complainant in crores of rupees. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that there are many criminal cases registered against the applicant. The applicant is a habitual offender. Most of the cases are registered against the applicant are of Negotiable Instruments in nature. Previously also, offences under Sections 420, 470 and 468 of the IPC were registered against the applicant, therefore, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this is a case of civil dispute between the applicant and the complainant, 4 MCRC-36299-2021 therefore, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. It is further directed that the Jail authority shall comply with all the instructions and guidelines issued by the Central Government and the State Government from time to time in regard to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic before releasing the applicant from the jail.

It is further directed that the the applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:-

1. the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

2. the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

3. the applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

4. the applicant shall also mark his presence before the SHO of

Police Station-Misrod, District-Bhopal on the 15th Day of Each Month.

This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE 5 MCRC-36299-2021 sh

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2021.08.13 17:23:52 IST