Full Text
Translation output
y V $-22/23/24/25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 901/2015
HARPREET SINGH
Through
BAIL APPLN. 901/2015
HARPREET SINGH
Through
VERSUS
STATE
Through Petitioner :Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Mr. Amitej Kr.
Nagar and Ms. Vasudha Bajaj, Advs. with Mr. Bakshi Singh, Adv.
Respondent ; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Ashwani Kumar, EOW
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for complainant AND
Through Petitioner :Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Mr. Amitej Kr.
Nagar and Ms. Vasudha Bajaj, Advs. with Mr. Bakshi Singh, Adv.
Respondent ; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Ashwani Kumar, EOW
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for complainant AND
BAIL APPLN. 1096/2015
NAVENDER SHARMA
Through
NAVENDER SHARMA
Through
VERSUS
STATE
Through
Through
BAIL APPLN. 1097/2015
: Mr. SudhirNandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suhail Malik, Adv.
:Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI AND 2016:DHC:8308
/ MEENU MANCHANDA
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. SudhirNandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suhail Malik, Adv.
:Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI AND 2016:DHC:8308
/ MEENU MANCHANDA
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
VERSUS
STATE
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI AND
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI AND
BAILAPPLN. 1098/2015
SONUSHARMA Petitioner
Through :Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate STATE
SONUSHARMA Petitioner
Through :Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate STATE
VERSUS
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
02.09.2016 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have contended that, as per the prosecution, Meenu Manchanda, Sonu Sharma and Navender Sharma had taken gold loan of ?32,00,000/-, ?85,00,000/- and ?48,00,000/-, respectively from the complainant bank, by pledging the gold jewellery, purity whereof as well as the weight of jewellery was certified by the approved appraiser/valuer, namely, Harpreet Singh. Subsequently, complainant found out that gold was not ofthe same purity and weight, as was certified by Harpreet Singh. The jewellery was found to be fake and the same was containing very less gold. It is further submitted that main mastermind of the loan transaction, as per the prosecution, was Vijay
Manchanda. Meenu Manchanda is wife of Vijay Manchanda. She is a housewife. Sonu Sharma and Navender Sharma were the employees of
Vijay Manchanda, who was running ajewellery shop under the name and style of Vandana International. Sonu Sharma as well as Navender Sharma are 9'^ class pass. They were getting monthly salary of ^8,000/- and
?9,000/- respectively only, having no capacity to avail gold loans of
^85,00,000/- and ?48,00,000/-. It is Vijay Manchanda who had availed the loan in the name ofthese petitioners and was actual beneficiary. As per the
FSL report, signatures of Meenu Manchanda were not found in the application form. It is further submitted that petitioners are on interim anticipatory bail for the last 16 months and have cooperated in the investigations. It is further submitted that the whole case ofthe prosecution
<- is based on the documents which have already been collected during the investigations, inasmuch as charge-sheet has already been filed against 15 accused out of total 24 accused. The accused facing trial are on bail.
Further that Vijay Manchanda has taken responsibility of the entire transaction upon himself in his disclosure statement. Even in the charge
^ sheet, Vijay Manchanda has been shown as the main accused. It is fiirther submitted that Vijay Manchanda has already deposited ^3.5 crores with the complainantbank.
Learned APP for the State, who is assisted by learned counsel for complainant, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners had submitted fabricated documents for availing the gold loan in connivance ofthe accused bank officials and pledged fake goldjewellery. The loan amount was disbursed in the accounts ofNarender, Sonu and Meenu. They are the beneficiaries. The appraiser Harpreet Singh, gave wrong certificate about purity and weight of the gold jewellery and believing his report, the gold loan was granted and disbursed by the bank.
Thus, he is the main preparator of crime and his offence is also serious in nature. Keeping in mind the enormity of the cheated amount, petitioners may not be granted concession of anticipatory bail even though they are n enjoying interim anticipatory bail for the la^t 16 months. The accused facing trial have been granted regular bail.
Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances as noted above, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioners be released on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
J" ?l,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) each with one surety each ofthe like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.
Bailapplications aredisposed of inthe above terms.
Dasti.
A.K>PATHAK, J.
SEPTEMBER 02,2016 rb
02.09.2016 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have contended that, as per the prosecution, Meenu Manchanda, Sonu Sharma and Navender Sharma had taken gold loan of ?32,00,000/-, ?85,00,000/- and ?48,00,000/-, respectively from the complainant bank, by pledging the gold jewellery, purity whereof as well as the weight of jewellery was certified by the approved appraiser/valuer, namely, Harpreet Singh. Subsequently, complainant found out that gold was not ofthe same purity and weight, as was certified by Harpreet Singh. The jewellery was found to be fake and the same was containing very less gold. It is further submitted that main mastermind of the loan transaction, as per the prosecution, was Vijay
Manchanda. Meenu Manchanda is wife of Vijay Manchanda. She is a housewife. Sonu Sharma and Navender Sharma were the employees of
Vijay Manchanda, who was running ajewellery shop under the name and style of Vandana International. Sonu Sharma as well as Navender Sharma are 9'^ class pass. They were getting monthly salary of ^8,000/- and
?9,000/- respectively only, having no capacity to avail gold loans of
^85,00,000/- and ?48,00,000/-. It is Vijay Manchanda who had availed the loan in the name ofthese petitioners and was actual beneficiary. As per the
FSL report, signatures of Meenu Manchanda were not found in the application form. It is further submitted that petitioners are on interim anticipatory bail for the last 16 months and have cooperated in the investigations. It is further submitted that the whole case ofthe prosecution
<- is based on the documents which have already been collected during the investigations, inasmuch as charge-sheet has already been filed against 15 accused out of total 24 accused. The accused facing trial are on bail.
Further that Vijay Manchanda has taken responsibility of the entire transaction upon himself in his disclosure statement. Even in the charge
^ sheet, Vijay Manchanda has been shown as the main accused. It is fiirther submitted that Vijay Manchanda has already deposited ^3.5 crores with the complainantbank.
Learned APP for the State, who is assisted by learned counsel for complainant, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners had submitted fabricated documents for availing the gold loan in connivance ofthe accused bank officials and pledged fake goldjewellery. The loan amount was disbursed in the accounts ofNarender, Sonu and Meenu. They are the beneficiaries. The appraiser Harpreet Singh, gave wrong certificate about purity and weight of the gold jewellery and believing his report, the gold loan was granted and disbursed by the bank.
Thus, he is the main preparator of crime and his offence is also serious in nature. Keeping in mind the enormity of the cheated amount, petitioners may not be granted concession of anticipatory bail even though they are n enjoying interim anticipatory bail for the la^t 16 months. The accused facing trial have been granted regular bail.
Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances as noted above, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioners be released on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
J" ?l,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) each with one surety each ofthe like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.
Bailapplications aredisposed of inthe above terms.
Dasti.
A.K>PATHAK, J.
SEPTEMBER 02,2016 rb
JUDGMENT