Ankur Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 March, 2022

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ankur Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 March, 2022

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR/RC No.BD1/2008/E/0008 registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof by the respondent/CBI.

2. Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that though the alleged offences relate to the year 2008, the applicant came to be arrested only on 01.04.2021. It is urged that the charge sheet having been filed, the applicant is not required for any investigation. It is further urged that since the applicant's mother/Veena Aggarwal, who owned the mortgaged properties, has already been released on regular bail by the Special Court vide order dated 07.12.2021, the applicant may also be extended the relief as he had lesser role to play in comparison to her.

Learned counsel also submits that the mortgaged properties, besides Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 properties of the family members of the applicant, have already been auctioned, wherefore a sum of Rs.5.08 crores has been recovered by the Banks. It is further stated that the applicant came to India on 04.07.2018 on voluntary departure from Canada, whereafter he was arrested by the respondent/CBI from his brother's office. It is stressed that the applicant was unaware of registration of the present RC and had got stuck in Canada, as his passport was seized by the Consulate General of India, Toronto. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has a wife and a 14-year-old daughter, who are Canadian citizens and are presently staying in Delhi.

3. Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, learned SPP for the respondent/CBI, has opposed the bail application. He submits that the applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused persons, duped inter-alia the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter, referred to as 'PNB'), by fraudulently availing credit facilities against forged title deeds of properties which were already mortgaged with other Banks. It is informed that in total, the accused have caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.6.27 crores to PNB.

Learned SPP has submitted that even though the aforesaid properties have been sold by the Banks, only a minuscule amount has been recovered. It has further been submitted that besides title deeds of the mortgaged properties, the accused also submitted various documents such as Balance Sheets, Profit and Loss account, etc. with PNB, which were all found to be forged. In support of the allegation, statement of one Shailender Kumar Jha, Chartered Accountant is stated to have been recorded, who has denied preparing the financial statements submitted by the applicant to PNB. Similarly, not only the concerned Advocate has denied drafting any sale deed, the concerned witnesses have also denied their signatures on the same.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49

The investigating agency has examined the Sub-Registrar and Draftsman as well, who have also denied execution of the title documents. In addition to the above, it has been found that the stamp paper used in making of the sale deed was also forged.

4. Learned SPP has further submitted that after committing the offence, all the accused persons fled from India to Canada, whereafter LOC was opened against them and they were deported after much difficulty. In this regard, learned SPP has drawn the attention of this Court to the travel documents, wherein it is mentioned that the applicant was deported under escort. He has urged that the alleged offence is economic and grave in nature, involving cheating of public money, and the applicant also does not qualify the triple test, being a flight risk. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the following excerpt from the decision in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2013) 7 SCC 439:-

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 material placed on record.

6. To recapitulate the factors relevant to the grant of bail, it is deemed apposite to make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported as (2018) 12 SCC 129, where it has been observed as follows:-

"17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are : (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court."

7. More recently, the principles governing grant of bail were considered by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central of Investigation reported as (2020) 13 SCC 337. Relevant extract from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-

"21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.

[Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi).]

22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk" of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straitjacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved."

8. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is noted that the applicant and his father/Omkar Mal Aggarwal, being proprietors of M/s Krishna Inc. and M/s Kalyan Laxmi Overseas respectively, are accused of having fraudulently obtained credit facilities from PNB during the years 2006-08, by concealing the fact that the properties mortgaged by the applicant's mother/Veena Aggarwal as collateral security for the facilities were already under charge of other Banks.

9. As per the allegations, the accused persons had first obtained a credit facility from Allahabad Bank, when Shop Nos.12-14, Ground floor in Plot No. 1171, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 as 'the shops'), alongwith premises No.13-A, New Gupta Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as 'New Gupta Colony property'), were mortgaged and the original title deeds of the shops submitted. Subsequently, the accused fabricated the title documents of the shops twice and by mortgaging the same, obtained loan facilities from the State Bank of Patiala, Darya Ganj Branch and PNB, Sadar Bazar. On 30.06.2008, the accounts in which loans were got sanctioned from PNB turned NPA, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.6,27,68,000/-. As the credit facilities were not repaid, the Bank pursued a complaint and the present RC came to be registered.

10. During investigation, it has been found that Omkar Mal Aggarwal had availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.2.60 crores from PNB in the name of M/s Kalyan Laxmi Overseas and the applicant had got sanctioned a CC limit of Rs.3.84 crores from PNB in the name of M/s Krishna Inc. Veena Aggarwal stood as guarantor in respect of both transactions. While the facilities availed by Omkar Mal Aggarwal were secured through mortgage of the NGC property, the facility of Rs.3.84 crores availed by the applicant was secured through mortgage of the shops.

11. Prior to entering into the aforesaid transactions, Veena Aggarwal and Omkar Mal Aggarwal had reportedly mortgaged the shops and the New Gupta Colony property with the Allahabad Bank in 2002-03 for availing credit facilities. The same year, on 01.03.2006, a CC limit of Rs.161.38 lacs was also got sanctioned by the accused from State Bank of Patiala in the name of M/s Krishna Chains & Jewellery Co., of which the applicant is stated to be a partner. It has been found that at the time, the shops were again mortgaged by the accused through forged and bogus documents.

12. It has further come on record that the documents submitted by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 applicant to PNB alongwith his application for loan, including the title deeds of properties, were forged. In this regard, the investigating agency has recorded statements of various persons including the Sub-Registrar, the Witnesses, the concerned Advocate as well as the concerned Chartered Accountant. It has also come on record that upon registration of the case, the applicant had fled from India and gone to Canada, where he remained till 2018. In fact, the applicant came to be declared a Proclaimed Offender on 13.09.2013. The learned CMM, Dwarka Courts had also issued fresh open ended NBWs against the applicant on 26.10.2018.

13. It is worthwhile to note that in the transaction with State Bank of Patiala, the applicant and Veena Aggarwal had executed the documents as borrowers. As it was found that the documents submitted with the Bank were bogus, another RC bearing No.072/2008/E/0003 was registered against the applicant and others under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof. The losses suffered by State Bank of Patiala reportedly amounted to Rs.5,77,20,422/- as on 15.11.2021.

14. A perusal of the material placed on record would also show that applications seeking bail under Sections 437/439 Cr.P.C., preferred by the applicant before Courts of the learned ACMM/Special Judge, were dismissed vide orders dated 15.04.2021, 09.08.2021 and 07.01.2022.

15. Although it has been alleged by the respondent that even after being deported from Canada in 2018, the applicant remained elusive by first not declaring his correct residential address to the Bureau of Immigration, and thereafter by not joining the investigation, during the course of proceedings, it has been submitted that the respondent never came to know about the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49 deportation of applicant to India. In this regard, it is noted that the deportation proceedings in Canada were undertaken at the behest of the respondent. As such, if there was any lack of communication between the respondent and the other authorities, the applicant cannot be faulted for the same.

16. Be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicant cheated two different Banks on the basis of forged documents. After the case came to be registered, he immediately fled from India and could be brought back only after 10 years. He evaded the process of law, for which he was also declared a Proclaimed Offender. Reportedly, the total default amount with respect to the loans obtained by the accused from PNB is Rs.6.27 crores. Another RC bearing No.072/2008/E/0003 has been registered against the applicant in respect of the credit facility availed from State Bank of Patiala.

17. Considering the judicial dicta cited hereinabove, the gravity of the alleged offence and the conduct of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to admit the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

18. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 8, 2022 Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:24.03.2022 12:49:49

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders