Full Text
BAIL APPLN. 1283/2017
RICKY KUNDRA
Represented by:
SMT PRANITA KUNDRA
Petitioner Mr.A.K.Tripathi, Advocate .... Respondent
Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant ... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.A.KTripathi, Advocate
.. Respondent Mr.Amit Gupta, APP Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant
29.11.2017
ORDER
1. By these petitions, petitioners seek bail in case FIR No.35/2017 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC atPS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi on the complaint of Mukesh Kumar. In the complaint Mukesh BAILAPPLN. 1283/2017& 2227/2017 2017:DHC:8525 Kumar alleged that Ricky Kundra in connivance with his parents i.e. Praneeta Kundra and Dinesh Kundra prepared forged and fabricated documents ofthe property ofthe complainant bearing No.684/1, Second and Third Floor with terrace, Bhola Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and tried to avail a loan in their names from the Central Bank of India On investigation from Central Bank of India it was. informed that a file was submitted by petitioners i.e. Praneeta Kundra ^d her son Ricky Kundra to avail the loan. The sale deed mentioned in the application dated 21.12.2004 was an exact replica of the sale deed produced by the husband of Praneeta Kundra which was found to be forged and fabricated. While the application was being,processed, the Law Officer ofthe Bank found the forgery in the documents. Praneeta Kundra besides applying for a loan on the basis of forged documents, along with son Ricky Kundra, also stood guarantor for a loan of ^2.[5] crores obtained from the Bank ofMaharashtra by her husband on forged and fabricated documents by mortgaging the entire property ofthe complainant including the two floors already sold tothe complainant.
2. Considering the material placed on record, this Court does not find anygroundto grantanticipatory bail to thepetitioners.
3. Applications are dismissed.
NOVEMBER 29,2017 rk UKTA GUPTA, J. BAILAPPLN 1283/2017&2227/2017 Page 1of[2]