Delhi High Court - Orders
Waseem Ahmad Khan vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 9 February, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~1 and 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 229/2021
WASEEM AHMAD KHAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for State
+ BAIL APPLN. 4202/2020
CRL.M.A. 18025/2020
NARENDRA KUMAR ARORA alias NK ARORA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. N. Hariharan Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karan Khanuja, Mr. Sidharth S.
Yadav, Mr. Samarth K. Luthra and
Mr. Akriti Mittal, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with
Inspector Nitin PS EO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 09.02.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 BAIL APPLN. 4202/20201. By these two petitions, the petitioners seek regular bail in case FIR No.149/2018 registered at PS-EOW for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature
Page 1 of 7 Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.02.2021
19:16:44
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Waseem Ahmad Khan states that the above noted FIR is based on two complaints, one by Mrs. Kamal Arora, mother of Narendra Kumar Arora and the other by Narendra Kumar Arora. He has taken this Court through the documents, particularly, the petition filed by Narendra Kumar Arora before the NCLT and his complaint stating that the version in the petition and the complaint are contrary to each other. In the complaint filed by him, he stated that the loan was to take over the management M/s. Wise Industrial Park Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Wise Industrial Park'), whereas the status report states that the loan was taken for purchase of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in any case, Mrs. Kamal Arora filed the complaint in 2017 and has since passed away in 2019 and prior thereto, in the year 2014 had executed a Will of her movable and immovable properties in favour of Narendra Kumar Arora, the co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Waseem Ahmed Khan further states that the present FIR survives only against the two petitioners and has already been quashed against M/s Earthcon Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Earthcon'), directors of Earthcon as also SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (in short 'SREI') on the basis that settlement has been arrived at.
4. During the course of the proceedings, Narendra Kumar Arora sought to purchase back his property, which was sold in execution but having failed to pay the amount, penalty was imposed upon him. It is further stated that the petitioner was, in any case, 50% owner of the shares and it cannot be said that the transaction was fraudulent. Further, the petitioner Waseem Ahmad Khan has executed no document which is found to be forged and fabricated as per the FSL opinion.
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature
Page 2 of 7 Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.02.2021
19:16:44
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Waseem Ahmed Khan further states that in any case, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18 th November, 2020 and the charge-sheet has since been filed, the evidence is documentary in nature and the petitioner is no more required for investigation.
6. Learned counsel for Narendra Kumar Arora states that as regards the first complaint of the mother of the petitioner is concerned, though the opinion of FSL is that the signatures of mother on the share pledge agreement are forged and fabricated, however, there is no opinion that the signatures of Mrs. Kamal Arora have been forged by Narendra Kumar Arora.
7. Further, as regards the second set of allegations are concerned, the loan amount taken from the NBFC stands satisfied from the sale of the property belonging to M/s Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Khoobsurat Resorts') which was a company owned by Narendra Kumar Arora and his family members and it is, thus, his property which has been sold. The entire proposal was at the instance of Waseem Ahmad Khan and Waseem Ahmad Khan defaulted in making payment whereafter the entire onus to clear the claims of NBFC fell on the petitioner which was satisfied by the sale of the land belonging to Khoobsurat Resorts. Further, the so- called Share Transfer Agreement between Waseem Ahmad Khan and Narendra Kumar Arora is concerned, no agreement has been executed by Narendra Kumar Arora and it has been found that the signatures of Narendra Kumar Arora are forged on the said agreement. Thus the petitioner Narender Kumar Arora is a victim.
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature
Page 3 of 7 Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.02.2021
19:16:44
8. Learned counsel for Narender Kumar Arora further states that the charge-sheet has since been filed, the trial will take some time and as the evidence is entirely documentary in nature and the petitioner is no more required for investigation and will be available for trial. There is no loss to anyone, loss if any, is to Narendra Kumar Arora. The triple test as laid down for grant of bail is satisfied and to ensure that the petitioner is available for trial, this Court may impose suitable conditions.
9. Learned APPs for the State rebutting the arguments of learned counsels for the petitioners contend that as per the FSL report, the signatures of Mrs. Kamal Arora on share pledge agreement were forged and fabricated, whereas that of Narendra Kumar Arora were found to be genuine and since Narendra Kumar Arora, utilized the said document, it is he, who got the signatures forged, even if not done by him. Further, there are two more documents in question, one being the MOU dated 29th October, 2012 and both the petitioners have admitted signing the said document. As regards the Share Transfer Agreement dated 27th October, 2012, which preceded the MOU dated 29th October, 2012, Narendra Kumar Arora has denied executing the same, and as per the FSL, the signatures of Narendra Kumar Arora on the said document do not match. Further the State is in the process of seeking further opinion on the Share Pledge Agreement and the Share Transfer Agreement.
10. The above noted FIR was registered after a complaint dated 8th September, 2017 was received from Mrs. Kamal Arora by EOW against Waseem Ahmad Khan and others. During the course of inquiry, a complaint was also received from Narendra Kumar Arora on 16 th November, 2017. The two complaints were clubbed and while inquiry was being conducted, BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature Page 4 of 7 Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.02.2021 19:16:44 Smt. Kamal Arora filed a complaint and on the directions of learned ACMM (South), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the FIR was registered.
11. According to Smt. Kamal Arora, she had never pledged her shares and subsequently, it was revealed to her that her shares in Khoobsurat Resorts have been pledged vide the Share Pledge Agreement. According to the complaint of Narendra Kumar Arora, Waseem Ahmad Khan approached him in the month of December, 2011 with a lucrative proposal to purchase the land at Gulawati, Ghaziabad from M/s. Wise Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Wise Infrastructure'). A cheque of Rs.12.5 lakhs dated 13th December, 2011 was issued in this regard from the account of Khoobsurat Resorts in favour of Mr. Sanjay M. Kalatkar, share holder and Director of Wise Infrastructure and Wise Industrial Park as advance against the total sale consideration of ₹12.5 crores. In order to purchase the property, loan was to be raised and thus, the parties approached SREI. According to Narendra Kumar Arora, Waseem Ahmad Khan already entered into an understanding with M/s. WISE and thus, became a director thereof on 6th December, 2012. The entire deal was finalised by Waseem Ahmad Khan, who purchased the land in the name of Multiwal Pulp and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Multiwal') which was the sole concern of Waseem Ahmad Khan and the property belonging to Khoobsurat Resorts was mortgaged as collateral security. Later, after the payments were made, it was revealed that lease deed of the land of WISE was cancelled by the UPSIDC and the company was having multiple loans on it. For repayment of the loan taken from SREI, the property of Khoobsurat Resorts was sold at throwaway price and according to Narendra Kumar Arora, the property was worth more than the auctioned price. Further, the property of M/s RGS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (in BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature Page 5 of 7 Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.02.2021 19:16:44 short 'RGS') situated at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad which was pledged as collateral for taking the loan was found to have already been acquired by the Government of UP and in this regard, FIR No.69/2018 had already been registered at PS - EOW pursuant to the directions of the learned CMM on the complaint of SREI.
12. As noted above, the signatures of Mrs. Kamal Arora on the Share Pledge Agreement have been found to be forged. The said agreement was utilized by Narendra Kumar Arora, whose signatures have been found to be genuine. Further, Narendra Kumar Arora's signatures on the Share Transfer Agreement have been found to be forged in the opinion of FSL.
13. The FIR in question qua the other accused except the present petitioners has been quashed on the basis of settlement. The evidence in the matter is primarily documentary in nature. The charge-sheet has since been filed and thus, no further custodial interrogation from the petitioners is required to be carried out. Consequently, this Court deems fit to grant bail to the petitioners.
14. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two surety bonds each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, further subject to the conditions that the petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of mobile number and/or the residential address of the petitioner, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
15. Petitions are disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature
Page 6 of 7 Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.02.2021
19:16:44
16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2021
PB
BAIL APPLN. 229/2021 & 4202/2020 Signature
Page 7 of 7 Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.02.2021
19:16:44