Allahabad High Court
Rupneek Kaur Matta W/O Gurpreet Singh vs C.B.I. Through Superintendent Of ... on 6 April, 2022
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1419 of 2022 Applicant :- Rupneek Kaur Matta W/O Gurpreet Singh Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Through Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I Eoeo 2 Eko -V Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI/opposite party and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has made a statement at the bar that he do not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Rupneek Kaur Matta invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she reasonably apprehends her arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide RC No. 220 2018 E0016, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I., EOEO-II, EOU-V, New Delhi.
Perusal of the record shows that prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 28.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that applicant has absolutely no role to play in the instant case and no offence is disclosed against her, as such, she be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that one of the co-accused Anil Kumar Rawat had approached the Apex Court and notices have been issued to the opposite party and in the meantime, arrest of the petitioner has been stayed, who shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that process of investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and other 13 co-accused persons, who have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 29.11.2021 under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The applicant did not appear before the court below on the date fixed but moved an application that since they are Covid Positive, as such, they could not appear before the court below and prayed for exemption of their appearance, which application was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2022 and the applicant was directed to appear personally before the court on 24.01.2022 but she did not appear before the court below as directed and instead filed the instant anticipatory bail application and prays that she be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.
Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant, who in connivance with the co-accused has committed offence of forgery for cheating and used forged documents as genuine and thereafter, got sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 800 Lacs against hypothecation of Stock and Book Debts and Term Loan of Rs. 200 Lacs and within span of two years, have closed the business by selling out the hypothecated Stock without depositing sale proceed to the loan amount and thus, siphoned off the loan amount for their personal gain thereby cheating the bank and incurred huge loss to the public exchequer.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the CBI that the loan was secured by way of collateral security of property i.e. 30/45, 2nd Floor, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, which was mortgaged by Balbir Singh S/o Nattha Singh, R/o H. No. 30/45, Plot No.30, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, however, investigation revealed that Shri Balbir Singh was not the owner of the property and conspiracy was hatched amongst the accused persons to cheat the bank and in pursuance of that conspiracy, above property was mortgaged as a collateral security and loan was managed on the basis of bogus documents. In fact, Balbir Singh was not the real owner of the said property and one, Jasbir Singh Matta was real owner of the said property.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that offered guarantee was found false during investigation and for the above mentioned conspiracy, applicant Rupneek Kaur Matta got monetary benefits. The investigation further revealed that property, which was kept as collateral security for availing Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 800 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 200 Lacs i.e. 30/45, 2nd Floor, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, was in fact kept with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prahladpur Branch in the Home Loan taken by the applicant Rupneek Kaur Matta and her husband Gurpreet Singh and a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs was paid to them by co-accused Kunal Ramchandani through Pankaj Sharma and Balbir Singh for settling of Home Loan of applicant Rupneek Kaur Matta.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that a conspiracy was hatched amongst Balbir Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Baldev Singh and the applicant Rupneek Kaur Matta and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, a sale deed of above property was executed by Baldev Singh, presently untraceable, in favour of co-accused Balbir Singh on 11.12.2006 on the basis of an agreement to sale in his favour by Vishwanath Malhotra. On the basis of said collateral security, the aforesaid loan was surreptitiously obtained.
It is further pointed out by the counsel for the CBI that another sale deed of said property was executed by Balbir Singh in the name of applicant in February, 2007. Balbir Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Rupneek Kaur Matta (applicant) in conspiracy with each other assured Kunal Ramchandani and Pankaj Sharma that there is no need to worry and the documents/sale deed in the name of Balbir Singh can be mortgaged as the inspection of the said property has already been managed by them on 18.10.2014 and in future, they will manage to get the property inspected as and when required and nobody will know that Balbir Singh is not the owner of the said property.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that during the course of investigation, ample evidence has been collected against the applicant that she was part of conspiracy hatched amongst them as she and her husband used to inform the bank officers, who visited the proposed property for inspection that Balbir Singh was the owner of the said property offered for mortgage.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that Balbir Singh @ Gurdeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Smt. Rupneek Kaur Matta managed to get inspected the above property by officers and valuer. Gurpreet Singh informed Vivek Aggarwal (Valuer) while he had visited above said property for valuation that his elder brother Balbir Singh @ Gurdeep Singh is the owner of the said property. Further, Balbir Singh @ Gurdeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Smt. Rupneek Kaur Matta informed Pankaj Sharma in presence of Gagan Kakkar that they got inspected the above property by bank officers earlier and if required, they will do the same again in future. Hence, there will be no problem to submit the documents showing Balbir Singh @ Gurdeep Singh being owner of above property. Hence, they all hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank, which allegations have not been controverted by the applicant' counsel.
It is further submitted that a well planned conspiracy has been hatched amongst the accused persons including the applicant and her husband Gurpreet Singh and thereby in a most surreptitious manner an equitable mortgage was created and the loan was got sanctioned and siphoned by the accused persons and the applicant causing huge loss to the public at large.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that provision of anticipatory bail is extra ordinary in nature and is not meant for high profile economic offenders, who constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in matters of bail. The economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial health of the country.
Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that despite direction of the court below to the applicant to appear on 24.01.2022 by allowing her exemption application, she repeatedly flouted the said order, consequent to which, repeated bailable warrants were issued against her vide orders dated 08.02.2022 and 23.02.2022. Yet the applicant did not appear before the court below, consequently, non-bailable warrant has been issued against her on 08.03.2022.
In the backdrop of the said circumstance, there is every likelihood that the applicant would not cooperate with the proceedings and flee from judicial process and being highly influential person, may tamper the witnesses, as such, her anticipatory bail application be dismissed.
It is trite law that power exerciseable under Section 438 CrPC is somewhat extraordinary in character and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that person may be falsely implicated or there are reasonable grounds for holding that persons-accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty.
Normally, a direction should not be issued to the effect that applicant be released on anticipatory bail, whenever arrested for whichever offence. 'Blanket orders' should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 CrPC is a device to secure the individual's liberty, it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely.
On the basis of facts of the case, it is evident that serious allegation of siphoning off of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 800 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 200 Lacs in connivance with the co-accused persons has been made against the applicant. After making thorough investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and cogent and ample evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency showing the active involvement of the applicant in the offence, in question. The applicant is an integral part of the conspiracy hatched amongst accused persons for siphoning off the said loan amount causing huge loss to the public exchequer.
It is well settled that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in matters of bail. The economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threats to the financial heath of the country. The applicant, despite being granted opportunity and allowing her exemption application, is deliberately avoiding the court proceedings and did not cooperate in the process of enquiry and trial, as such, repeated bailable warrants and non-bailable warrant have been issued against her. There is every likelihood that the applicant may flee from judicial process and tamper the witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the accusation and amongst others, the larger interest of the public, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 9 SCC 24, P. Chidambram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
In case, if a regular bail application is filed by the applicant, the same shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Nadim