Delhi High Court: An application was filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Navin Chawla, J., refused anticipatory bail to the accused for want of custodial interrogation.
A complaint was filed by the complainant stating that he had received letters dated 08-01-2020 and 15-01-2020 from the Punjab National Bank, Kalkaji Branch regarding an alleged term loan account which was stated to be a partnership firm of which he was alleged to be one of the partners. He denied having any connection with the said firm or having availed or taken any such loan. On inquiry, it was found that his Aadhaar Card and Pan Card has been misused inter alia by the applicant herein for claiming that he was a partner in the said firm and a Partnership Deed allegedly bearing complainant’s signatures was produced before the bank.
It was further alleged that the term loan got sanctioned by mortgaging a flat which stood in the name of the daughter of the complainant, who has been residing in London and the said property had already been sold by him, as a Power of Attorney of his daughter, to a third party on 24–08–2018. It is the case of the prosecution that she actively connived along with the co-accused in projecting herself to be a partner along with the complainant/informant to obtain an overdraft facility from the bank. In the said transaction, the property belonging to the daughter of the complainant was mortgaged illegally without any authority. The complainant/informant stated that the said property stood sold to a third party before the transaction date.
The Court noted that the present case involves multiple victims facing consequences for the acts of the conspiracy that has been alleged against the applicant. The entire extent of this conspiracy and the manner of its execution are yet to be unearthed fully by the prosecution. Though, it was submitted that the amount that was received by the applicant from the partnership firm and from the co-accused, stood transferred to her husband, presently it cannot be denied that she did first receive this money. What her exact role was in the same can only be unearthed by further investigation. She earlier tried to evade investigation and Non-Bailable Warrants had to be issued for seeking her production.
The Court further noted that the prosecution alleged that there is another FIR with similar allegations against the applicant. Though, the applicant stated that the dispute giving rise to the said FIR has been settled with the complainant/informant therein and has placed a settlement deed on record in support of this assertion, thus, this itself would give rise to a suspicion that similar modus operandi has been used by the applicant in more than one case. The possibility of more cases being there where the applicant was involved also not be ruled out. The same would again require custodial interrogation of the applicant.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and refused bail to the applicant.
[Preeti Anand v State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 207, decided on 11-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Amulya Dhingra, Ms. Dhretti Bhatia, Mr. Abhishek Dev and Mr. Surpreet Singh Gill Advocate for applicant
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State alongwith SI Roshan Lal Ms. Somaya Gupta and Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advs. for complainant/informant.
