2020 (7) TMI 615 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - fake sale - persuading the complainant to purchase the apartment in the complainants name - main allegation against the applicant is that he is the ultimate recipient of ₹ 46,40,000/- taken by way of a loan from the bank, against an equitable mortgage, on the basis of a sale deed which is alleged to be fake and forged - HELD THAT - The applicant has not cooperated in the investigation, the only aspect cited is that the applicant did not give to the I.O. original documents relating to the sale of goods against which money was received by the applicant/M/s Harshit Enterprises from M/s Heico Electronics. However, this demand of the I.O. must be taken as answered on point of fact, when the original, signed office copies of invoice/s dated 28.03.2014 were delivered by the applicants counsel to the I.O. in court, as recorded in order dated 27.09.2017 made by the Sessions Court; and copies thereof were also placed on the court record. It is reasonable to assume that the original invoices would have been delivered to the person upon whom the invoices were raised, in this case M/s Heico Electronics, and would therefore not have been available with the applicant. None of the grounds for continuing the applicants judicial custody as an undertrial is made-out in the present case - That insofar as the applicant committing any further offence is concerned, in this case that ground is purely speculative as is the ground of possible inducement, threat or promise being extended to any prosecution witness or other such person - That insofar as the possibility of the applicant absconding from trial, that ground also appears to be farfetched and can be taken-care of by imposing appropriate conditions of bail. This court is persuaded to admit the applicant to regular bail subject to conditions imposed.

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of fraud and forgery under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
2. Applicant's judicial custody and bail application.
3. Applicant's alleged non-cooperation with the investigation.
4. Applicant's alleged abscondence and declaration as a proclaimed offender.
5. Consideration of bail in light of co-accused being granted bail.
6. Legal precedents relevant to the grant of bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Fraud and Forgery:
The applicant is accused in FIR No. 88/2015, registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at PS: Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the applicant, through intermediaries, persuaded him to purchase an apartment in his name and later transfer it to the applicant. The complainant claimed that he was deceived into signing loan documents, resulting in a loan of ?46,50,000/- being sanctioned against an equitable mortgage of a non-existent property, with the sale deed alleged to be fake and forged.

2. Applicant's Judicial Custody and Bail Application:
The applicant has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2020 and seeks regular bail during the trial's pendency. The primary allegation against the applicant is that he is the ultimate recipient of ?46,40,000/- taken by way of a loan from the bank on the basis of a fake sale deed. The applicant had previously moved anticipatory bail applications, which were granted conditionally but were not complied with, leading to his judicial custody.

3. Applicant's Alleged Non-Cooperation with the Investigation:
The State contended that the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation by failing to furnish original documents reflecting the due amount from co-accused Ravi Kumar and tax payment on the said amount. However, the court noted that the applicant's counsel had delivered original signed office copies of invoices to the IO, as recorded in the Sessions Court order dated 27.09.2017. The court emphasized that under the criminal jurisprudence system, an accused has a right of silence and a fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

4. Applicant's Alleged Abscondence and Declaration as a Proclaimed Offender:
The State alleged that the applicant absconded after obtaining anticipatory bail orders and notices issued to him remained undelivered. Consequently, NBWs were obtained, and the applicant was declared a proclaimed offender on 30.11.2019. However, the court found that there was confusion regarding the applicant's current address and noted that the applicant would defend the charge under section 174A IPC during the trial.

5. Consideration of Bail in Light of Co-Accused Being Granted Bail:
The court observed that all co-accused, except one who is absconding, have been admitted to bail, making a compelling case for granting bail to the applicant on grounds of parity. The court also noted that the offences alleged are essentially economic offences, and the prosecution would rely primarily on documentary evidence, which has already been collected.

6. Legal Precedents Relevant to the Grant of Bail:
The court referred to several judicial precedents, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the accused's appearance at trial and not to punish. The court highlighted that the severity of the offence and the number of pending cases against the accused cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The court also underscored the importance of the accused's right to prepare and present his defense effectively, which is hindered by pre-trial detention.

Conclusion:
Upon considering the allegations, material on record, and balancing the rights of the accused, the victim, and the State, the court found that none of the grounds for continuing the applicant's judicial custody as an undertrial were made out. The court granted regular bail to the applicant pending trial, subject to specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, making periodic video calls to the IO, and ensuring no contact with the complainant or prosecution witnesses. The bail application was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →