Sandeep Tilwani v. State of NCT

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 220/20 under Section 420/406/467/468/471/474/120-B IPC registered at Police Station E.O.W.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. Upma Sharma who is one of the directors of the company "Cargomasters Logistics Pvt. Ltd.", engaged in the business of freight forwarding and logistics services (International transportation). The complainant alleged that the present petitioner Sandeep Tilwani, is the director of "J Sai Kripa Import & Export Co. Ltd. which is also engaged in logistics services and he used to play the role as a middleman between importers and companies, which provides freight services. In 2018, petitioner assigned 74 bookings of 640 rice containers to the complainant company for freight services (transportation) to the tune of Rs. 11,20,00,000/-.

3. For gaining the confidence of the complainant, petitioner made initial payments to the complainant and after that he stopped the payment for freight services provided by the complainant company because of which complainant stopped the release of remaining Bill of Ladings (BLs). Petitioner induced the complainant to release the remaining BL's and to assure her, he sent copies of two Telegraphic transfers (TTs) as a proof of payment and promised that he was going to transfer the payment through these TTs from Thailand.

4. The complainant believing these (TTs) to be true released 3 remaining BL's. But neither the due payment nor the payment against these 3 BL's, was transferred by the petitioner. Later on, complainant came to know that the said (TTs) were never deposited in the concern bank in Thailand.

5. It is alleged that the present petitioner by sending fake (TTs), succeeded in getting the BL's released from the complainant and did not make payment to her while the payment of transportation/freight services of these bookings were received by him from importers. It is further alleged that the petitioner in connivance with importers, Akash Ukrani and Vinod Ukrani cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 7 Crore.

6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant, perused the Status Report filed by the State and also perused the records of this case.

7. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case in order to recover the money in a commercial transaction. He further submitted that the petitioner was only a mediator between the seller and the buyer and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the present FIR is nothing but a ploy to extort money from the petitioner. He further submitted that no efforts have been made to arrest the co-accused persons and the investigation is now complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in J.C.

8. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has concealed the relevant facts while getting the present FIR registered and it is the admitted position of the complainant that the total amount due and payable to her is only Rs. 6.91 Crores which is in contradiction to the initial complainant filed by her. It is further submitted that there is no document to prove that the payment against the material supplied by the complainant has been received by the petitioner from the importers.

9. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that according to the complainant on the assurance of one Mr. Manish, she had agreed to do business transactions but there is no mentioning of Manish in the entire charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner has never forged Telegraphic Transfers. He further submitted that the petitioner never lured the complainant to release the Bill of Ladings. On the contrary, the complainant was directly dealing with the buyers. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" [(2012) 1 SCC 40].

10. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has strongly opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the Status Report. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner/accused is a habitual offender and had committed many similar offences in Thailand and his passport has been seized by the Court in Thailand. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner has got issued four passports and has even changed his identity. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner assigned 74 bookings of 640 rice containers to the complainant company and in order to gain the confidence of the complainant the petitioner made initial payments to the complainant and thereafter stopped the payment for freight services provided by the complainant company.

11. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the petitioner induced the complainant to release the remaining BL's and had sent copies of two Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) as a proof of payment and promised that he was going to transfer the payment through these TTs from Thailand and believing these TTs to be correct, the complainant released 3 remaining BL's.

12. In the instant case, as per the allegations, the petitioner is a habitual offender having similar cases registered against him in the Court of Thailand and he has even got issued 4 passports by changing his identity. So, when such is the position, the petitioner is a flight risk and the allegations against him are grave and serious in nature who has cheated the complainant in a planned manner to the tune of more than rupees Six Crores. The petitioner has even got 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) released from the complainant and in order to gain the confidence of the complainant, he sent copies of two Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) as a proof of payment and the complainant believing these two TTs to be true released 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) but neither the due payment nor the payment against these 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) were transferred by the petitioner and later on it was revealed during the investigation that the TTs were never deposited by the petitioner in the concerned bank at Thailand and the petitioner succeeded in getting 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) released by the complainant by sending fake TTs.

13. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the judgment "supra" relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner but each case has to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the judgment "supra" relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. 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;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280). 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.