Allahabad High Court
Nitin Mehta vs Cbi/Eo-I New Delhi on 28 January, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18246 of 2021 Applicant :- Nitin Mehta Opposite Party :- Cbi/Eo-I New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Anurag Vajpeyi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Vajpeyi learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2020 (CBI Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and others) arising out of R.C. No. 2192017 (E)0017, Under Section 120B I.P.C., read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Substantive Offences, Police Station C.B.I. EO-I, New Delhi.
3. The allegation in the FIR is that M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd. constructed a multi-storied residential flats at Plot No.6, Village Dundahera, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad. The said project was approved by Punjab National Bank for sanction of housing loans to the allottees of flats in the said project. The housing loans were sanctioned to allottees from the branches of Punjab National Bank situated at Vasundhra, Vaishali, Indirapuram and Retail, District Ghaziabad. Sri Sachin Datta, Director of M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. allegedly connived with the allottees and cheated the Bank for gaining housing loans on the basis of false and fabricated documents. In the dispute more than one allotment letter for the same flats were issued, thereby induced the bank. The builder also allotted flats on 16th floor despite the fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had given approval upto 15 floor only and, thereby induced the bank to the sanctioned loans for unapproved houses and defrauded the bank with malafide intention.
4. During the course of investigation the name of the accused-applicant has come as conspirator. The investigation has revealed that accused Sachin Datta, builder in the criminal conspiracy with the present accused-applicant, Nitin Mehta again shown flat No. B1005, Foster Heights to the present accused-applicant in the 2013. The agreement to sell was executed on 22nd April, 2013 which was signed by Sachin Datta and the present accused-applicant. Although no booking amount was paid by the present accused applicant for the said flat, yet in the agreement to sell, it was fraudulently mentioned that allottee had paid Rs. 10.01 lakh to the builder as margin money/booking amount. The builder had issued a forged receipt dated 22nd April, 2013 and 27th April, 2013 to the present accused-applicant fraudulently showing payment received by him from the allottees.
5. The total cost the flat No. B1005 was showing to be Rs. 67.89 lacs. The present accused-applicant had applied to PNB, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad for housing loan of Rs. 50 lakhs. The loan application of accused-applicant, Nitin Mehta along with income, address and identity proof of the borrower was submitted to the bank through the builder's office. After execution of the loan documents, an amount of Rs. 59.50 lakhs was disbursed on 29th April, 2013 by the bank which was credited to the account of M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
6. The said flat had already been sold to one Ms. Sweta Tuhnait by the accused Sachin Datta and she was the actual allottee of the said flat and also was in possession of this flat. The accused-applicant in conspiracy with the main accused, Sachin Datta had defrauded the bank to the extent of Rs. 49.50 lakhs and during the course of investigation sufficient evidence has come to the court.
7. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that without paying a single penny it was mentioned in the agreement to sell that the accused-applicant has paid Rs. 10 lakhs to the builder and on the basis of forged documents, loan amount of Rs. 49.50 lakhs were sanction in favour of the accused-applicant which has not been paid, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
8. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
9. The accused-applicant is granted ten days time to surrender and apply for regular bail. If the accused-applicant surrenders and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Kumar Manish.