Delhi High Court
Pratika N. Rajgarhia vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 July, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
Bench: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: June 08, 2013
Judgment Pronounced on: July 01, 2013
+ Bail Appl. No.1018/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013
PRATIKA N. RAJGARHIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sunil Mittal, Adv. with Mr.Jaibir
Singh Nagar, Mr.Pawan Motla,
Mr.Prevendra Kumar, Mr.Saurabh
Balwani, Mr.Anshul Mittal &
Mr.Ashwani Kumar, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State
with I.O./Insp. Vivek Maheshwari,
EOW.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Madhav Khurana & Mr.Vishal
Malhotra, Advs. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned application under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner submits that Yes Bank had registered the FIR No.05/2012 only against Mr.N.K.Rajgarhia, alleging, inter alia, cheating, conspiracy and forging. He has not taken part in any illegal activity; misplaced suspicion was placed on him because he is the son of the accused in the instant matter. His signatures obtained on the documents were forged. As Inspecting Officer has retained the petitioner's name on the suspect list in the final charge sheet of the abovementioned FIR, therefore, the petitioner Bail Appl. No.1018/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013 Page 1 of 4 is apprehending his arrest and the present application has been filed inter alia, for the following main grounds:
a. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioner and, the FIR has not attributed anything to him.
b. The petitioner stood as a guarantor, only in the capacity of a fiduciary relationship between him and his father and was unaware of any documents that he signed, which were used to secure the loan.
c. When the investigation had started, he made it clear to the investigating officer that he was not aware of his signature used to secure a loan from M/s. Indiabulls Financial Services. He was not a conspirator to the allegations against his father. Moreover, the petitioner was a willing contributor to the investigation, and has not hindered it in any form.
d. The petitioner has no antecedent of criminal conduct. His permanent residence is in Delhi, he will not leave the city without the permission of I.O.
3. The prayer for anticipatory bail is opposed by Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned APP has referred the status report which discloses that during the course of investigation, it became apparent that both the petitioner and his father had submitted fabricated documents of self-certified Net Worth Certificates and other documents related to the financial affairs of M/s. Texcomash Exports. It is stated that the petitioner and his father, together, forged the title deed of the property, and used various floors of the same as collateral in respect of loans with four other banks, namely, Birla Home Loans (Blue Home finance Ltd.), Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd., Bail Appl. No.1018/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013 Page 2 of 4 Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. and Deutsche Postbank Home Finance Ltd. Documents submitted to these banks contained the signatures of the petitioner as well as his father. It is stated that the petitioner was not enthusiastic about joining the investigation for a long time, and states the following reasons for his custodial interrogation:
(i) To ascertain the names of his accomplices, who helped him forge the abovementioned documents.
(ii) To trace the entire cheated amount, transferred to various fake bank accounts.
(iii) To ascertain the exact role of all the other accomplices involved.
4. Mr.Sunil Mittal, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner on receiving the notice in the month of September, 2012 has already joined the investigation. He submits that the FIR No.5/2012 was registered only against Mr.N.K.Rajgarhia at the instance of Yes Bank Ltd. making certain allegations of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy and he was arrested in the said case on 16th November, 2012 and is still in judicial custody. Even as per the complaint, no financial benefit has ever been transferred to his client. The police has already filed the charge sheet after completing the investigation against his father in the month of February, 2013 in this matter. His client only stood as guarantor when the loan was taken by his father. The Bank has already secured its loan by security furnished by his father in the form of equitable mortgage of the property. His client is a young person having no criminal antecedents he is not previously involved in any criminal case. His arrest in the present case would adversely affect both his career and life. No notice for his personal Bail Appl. No.1018/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013 Page 3 of 4 appearance to join the investigation was received earlier by his client otherwise he would have joined the investigation at the first date itself. Mr. Mittal argues that at the time of enhancing the loan facility by the bank in favour of his father from Rs.4 crores to Rs.8.5 crores, his client being a guarantor was not informed by the bank.
5. Mr. Sunil Mittal, the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to join and cooperate in the investigation of this case and on instruction undertakes that the petitioner would be appearing before investigating officer as and when called and will not leave the city without the permission of Investigating Officer and would not approach the other alleged accused persons in the matter and temper with any evidence. His client has already replied to the questionnaire handed over by the Investigation Officer on 26th September, 2012.
6. Subject to the abovementioned undertaking and without commenting upon the merit of the case, till the next date, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. Needless to say that if petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigation, the respondent/State shall be at liberty to get this order vacated.
7. List on 2nd September, 2013 before regular bench alongwith Bail Application No.666/2013 and fresh application Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013 filed by the complainant.
(MANMOHAN SINGH) VACATION JUDGE JULY 01, 2013 Bail Appl. No.1018/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9321/2013 Page 4 of 4