Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Veena Aggarwal on 8 March, 2022
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 853/2022
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP for CBI
with Mr. Prakash Airan and Ms.
Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates.
versus
VEENA AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Mr. Sushant
Mahajan and Mr. J. Aggarwal,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 08.03.2022
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/CBI seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, PC Act (CBI-02), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in RC/BD1/2008/E/0008 registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, whereby the respondent has been granted regular bail.
2. Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, learned SPP for the petitioner/CBI, submits that the aforesaid order has been passed on untenable grounds without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the present RC was registered on the complaint of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter, referred to as 'PNB'), alleging that the respondent's husband/Omkar Mal Aggarwal and son/Ankur Aggarwal, being proprietors of M/s Kalyan Laxmi Overseas and M/s Krishna Inc. respectively, had obtained credit facilities from PNB during the period 2006-08 by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 misrepresenting and concealing facts, for which the respondent stood guarantor and mortgaged forged title deeds of properties as collateral security.
3. Learned SPP has submitted that co-accused persons i.e., Omkar Mal Aggarwal and Ankur Aggarwal, alongwith the present respondent, created charge/mortgage through forged and bogus documents over the properties, i.e., Shop Nos.12-14, Plot No.1171, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as 'the shops') and premises No. 13-A, New Gupta Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the 'New Gupta Colony property'), which were already mortgaged with other banks. The respondent was not only aware that the title deeds of the aforesaid properties, which were deposited with the banks, were forged, but also that original of the same were lying mortgaged with the Allahabad Bank. As a result of this conspiracy, the respondent and co-accused persons caused wrongful loss to PNB to the tune of Rs.6.27 crores and consequent gain to themselves.
4. Learned SPP also submits that during investigation, it has come on record that it is the present respondent, in whose name forged stamp papers were issued and ultimately used to prepare forged sale deed, which was later on deposited with PNB. It is further urged that after registration of the RC, the respondent fled from India to Canada, whereafter LOC was opened against her and she was deported on 04.07.2018 after much difficulty. It is submitted that even after her being deported from Canada in 2018, the respondent remained elusive and did not join investigation, whereafter she came to be arrested only on 01/02.04.2021.
5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. He submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 parameters for adjudication of an application seeking cancellation of bail are well defined and it is not a case where bail has been granted on extraneous grounds. It is stressed that the Special Court admitted the respondent on bail after considering the entire conspectus of the facts and due application of mind.
Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that after grant of interim bail, the respondent had duly surrendered in time and at no point of time, she is alleged to have misused the liberty granted to her. Insofar as the submission with respect to the respondent having evaded the process of law is concerned, it is stated that the respondent came to India on 04.07.2018, but thereafter, the petitioner/CBI did not summon her for three years until she was arrested from the house of her own son.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
7. Before proceeding further, it is noted that the law with respect to setting aside of an order granting bail was recently discussed in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported as (2020) 11 SCC 648 where, while relying on its earlier decision in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another reported as (2020) 2 SCC 118, the Supreme Court held as under :-
"6. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, a coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate court in setting aside an order of granting bail. The two key factors for interfering with such an order are non-application of mind on the part of the court granting bail or the opinion of the court in granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. In Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., a two-Judge Bench of this Court declined to interfere with an order of the High Court granting Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 bail to an accused having considered the factual features of that case."
8. In the present case, it is apparent that while passing the impugned order, the Special Court not only took into account the allegations against the respondent, but also her conduct. During the proceedings, although leniency in grant of bail with regard to the medical condition of the respondent was contested by the learned SPP for the petitioner, it was not denied that she was suffering from various ailments including Type II diabetes and arthritis, for which she was under constant treatment from a rheumatologist. Even though an apprehension was raised by the petitioner that the respondent may flee from justice, the Court was cognizant of the fact that her passport had been impounded and therefore, she could not leave India. In arriving at its conclusion, the Court was ultimately guided by considerations, including the fact that the respondent was about 62 years of age and stated to be a cancer survivor; the fact that investigation was complete and charge sheet had been filed long ago; and the fact that the mortgaged properties had been sold and Rs.2,75,24,645/- (approx.) recovered by the Banks in both the RCs, as per the petitioner's reply.
9. From the material placed on record, it is discernible that the present case was registered on 14.11.2008 on the complaint of Chief Manager, Trade Finance Branch, Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar, Delhi with respect to credit facilities fraudulently taken by M/s Krishna Inc., a proprietorship firm of Ankur Aggarwal, and M/s Kalyan Laxmi Overseas, a proprietorship firm of Omkar Mal Aggarwal. The respondent, who had stood as a guarantor at the time of seeking credit facilities from PNB, is stated to be the owner of the properties which were mortgaged. Besides the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 present RC, she has been arrayed as an accused by the petitioner/CBI in RC No.072/2008/E/0003 registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.
10. After being brought from Canada to India, the respondent remained in custody from 02.04.2021 till 24.05.2021, whereafter she was released on interim bail for a period of 90 days vide orders dated 22.05.2021 and 05.06.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge in the present RC and in RC No. 072/2008/E/0003 respectively. Thereafter, she surrendered before the jail authorities on 19.11.2021. No allegation of misuse of the concession granted to the respondent has been levelled by the petitioner.
11. Vide separate order dated 07.12.2021, the respondent has been granted regular bail in RC No. 072/2008/E/0003 as well and though the petitioner has assailed the order granting bail to the respondent in the present RC, the order dated 07.12.2021 passed in respect of the other RC has not been challenged till date. The Banks have already sold the mortgaged properties by way of auction and realised Rs.2,75,24,645/- (approx.). The investigation in the case is complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the exposition of law propounded by the Supreme Court lately in Prabhakar Tewari (Supra), no ground is made out in the opinion of this Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondent. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 8, 2022/ga Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49