Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 773/2016
SUSHIL PRAJAPATI «& ANR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Ms. Shivani Luthra
Lohiya & Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 773/2016
SUSHIL PRAJAPATI «& ANR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Ms. Shivani Luthra
Lohiya & Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT) Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Kollur, APP with SI Jagtar Singh, PS Janakpuri.
Through: Ms. Radhika Kollur, APP with SI Jagtar Singh, PS Janakpuri.
BAIL APPLN. 1075/2016
RAJNISH KUMAR SINGH & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advoeate with Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Ms. Shivani Luthra
Lohiya & Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Advocates
RAJNISH KUMAR SINGH & ANR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advoeate with Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Ms. Shivani Luthra
Lohiya & Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Kollur, APP with SI Jagtar Singh, PS Janakpuri.
Through: Ms. Radhika Kollur, APP with SI Jagtar Singh, PS Janakpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
20.07.2016 These petitions have been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to seek antieipatory bail apprehending arrest in case FIR No. 943/2015 under
Seetions 409/420/467/468/471/120B IPG registered at Police Station
Janakpuri, West Delhi.
2016:DHC:8266 The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that complainant Manish Bhasin had made the initial complaint on the allegation that the petitioners had closed the office ofRushab Marketing Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. at Janakpuri and that the accused had taken advance ofmore than Rs.
10 lakhs and had not paid back the same till date. It was also alleged that the bank for which Rushab Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was rendering services (HDFC Bank) had informed that during the period April, 2014 to
December, 2014, applications for personal loan to the tune of Rs.
26,41,000/- had been made which were soureed by the said accused on behalf of Rushab Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and the borrowers had started defaulting in making repayment. When the borrowers were approached, they denied having taken the loans. The accused persons were not willingto provide clarification.
During the course ofinvestigation, the police has recorded statements of two of the borrowers, namely, Sanju Kumar @ Sanju Harlal and Sunil
Kumar Sharma.son of late Shri Sukhdev Raj Sharma, who had obtained a personal loan of Rs. 6,36,348/- from HDFC Bank. These two persons/borrowers in their respective statements have implicated the petitioners in these bail applications by claiming that they had agreed to arrange loans for the borrowers on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
Ms. Luthra submits that the petitioners had no role to play in the matter of forgery andfabrication. It was notthe part of the petitioners' duty to verify the authenticity of the documents and it was for the bank to satisfy itself with regard to authenticity of the documents. The petitioners were only getting a part of the commission being received by Rushab Marketing
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for the services rendered by them.
She further furthers that, in fact, HDFC Bank has not raised any grievance in relation to any forgery or fabrication ofdocuments, much less, by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already joined investigation before the 10. She further states that the petitioners are willing to be subjected to such conditions as this Court may impose.
Prima face, it appears that the petitioners were not obliged to examine the authenticity of the documents submitted by the borrowers. Moreover, the Bank does not appear to have taken any action in the matter, including, againstthe petitioners herein.
In these circumstances, both the bail applications are allowed. Bach ofthe applicants is directed to be released on bail incase oftheir arrest upon their furnishing a personal bond with one surety each in the sum of
Rs. 20,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Each of the applicants is directed to surrender his Passport, ifobtained by them, and not totravel outside the country without the prior permission ofthe Court. The aforesaid protection is granted subject to further condition that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called for and shall co operate in the matter. In case ofnon-cooperation, it shall be open to the
State to move the trial court for revocation of bail.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 20, 2016 si
20.07.2016 These petitions have been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to seek antieipatory bail apprehending arrest in case FIR No. 943/2015 under
Seetions 409/420/467/468/471/120B IPG registered at Police Station
Janakpuri, West Delhi.
2016:DHC:8266 The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that complainant Manish Bhasin had made the initial complaint on the allegation that the petitioners had closed the office ofRushab Marketing Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. at Janakpuri and that the accused had taken advance ofmore than Rs.
10 lakhs and had not paid back the same till date. It was also alleged that the bank for which Rushab Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was rendering services (HDFC Bank) had informed that during the period April, 2014 to
December, 2014, applications for personal loan to the tune of Rs.
26,41,000/- had been made which were soureed by the said accused on behalf of Rushab Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and the borrowers had started defaulting in making repayment. When the borrowers were approached, they denied having taken the loans. The accused persons were not willingto provide clarification.
During the course ofinvestigation, the police has recorded statements of two of the borrowers, namely, Sanju Kumar @ Sanju Harlal and Sunil
Kumar Sharma.son of late Shri Sukhdev Raj Sharma, who had obtained a personal loan of Rs. 6,36,348/- from HDFC Bank. These two persons/borrowers in their respective statements have implicated the petitioners in these bail applications by claiming that they had agreed to arrange loans for the borrowers on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
Ms. Luthra submits that the petitioners had no role to play in the matter of forgery andfabrication. It was notthe part of the petitioners' duty to verify the authenticity of the documents and it was for the bank to satisfy itself with regard to authenticity of the documents. The petitioners were only getting a part of the commission being received by Rushab Marketing
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for the services rendered by them.
She further furthers that, in fact, HDFC Bank has not raised any grievance in relation to any forgery or fabrication ofdocuments, much less, by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already joined investigation before the 10. She further states that the petitioners are willing to be subjected to such conditions as this Court may impose.
Prima face, it appears that the petitioners were not obliged to examine the authenticity of the documents submitted by the borrowers. Moreover, the Bank does not appear to have taken any action in the matter, including, againstthe petitioners herein.
In these circumstances, both the bail applications are allowed. Bach ofthe applicants is directed to be released on bail incase oftheir arrest upon their furnishing a personal bond with one surety each in the sum of
Rs. 20,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Each of the applicants is directed to surrender his Passport, ifobtained by them, and not totravel outside the country without the prior permission ofthe Court. The aforesaid protection is granted subject to further condition that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called for and shall co operate in the matter. In case ofnon-cooperation, it shall be open to the
State to move the trial court for revocation of bail.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 20, 2016 si
JUDGMENT