Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2932
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan, J.
S.L.Maloo - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Resopndent
Bail Appln. 1249/2012
Decided On : 05-09-2012
Through:Mr.Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State with Inspector Amardeep Sehgal, from PS Barakhamba Road. Mr.Manoj Taneja, Advocate for Complainant.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and the court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, the antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 420, 416, 418, 468, 471 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to anticipatory bail and the parameters for granting it. It also highlighted the seriousness of the accusations, the antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of misuse of liberty. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and when the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery related to the ownership of a flat. The complainant company claimed that the petitioner, as a director of several companies, had fraudulently transferred ownership rights of the flat to the complainant company and then to a new management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail as it prima facie appeared that he had engaged in fraudulent activities, including forging an Agreement to Sell and transferring ownership rights to the complainant company. The court also noted the petitioner's previous involvements in similar cases and the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in a case of alleged fraud and forgery, the credibility of the petitioner's statements, and the seriousness of the accusations against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the parameters for granting anticipatory bail, as highlighted in previous Supreme Court judgments. It considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the antecedents of the petitioner, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to any protection from the court. The observations made by the court were clarified not to prejudice either of the parties at the trial stage.
Manmohan, J.
Crl.M.A.No.14397/2012
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Crl.M.A.No.15834/2012 Though the present application has been filed for withdrawal of Bail Application No.1249/2012, but learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions not to press this application. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn. BAIL APPLN. 1249/2012
1. The present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.19/2012 registered with Police Station Barakhamba Road under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions from the petitioner to withdraw the allegations against his lawyer Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh. The said statement is accepted by this Court and the petitioner is held bound by the same.
3. The relevant facts of the present case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Mr. Ram Bihari Sachan, Authorized Representative of the complainant company M/s. Universal Finance and Traders Ltd. In the complaint, it has been stated that the complainant company had been taken over by the new management in the year 2007 vide Share Purchase Agreement dated 13th February, 2007. According to the complainant, as per the financial statements handed over by the earlier management, the complainant company was the sole owner and in exclusive possession of flat No. 10 H Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg (hereinafter referred to as the ‘aforesaid flat’). In the complaint, it was also stated that as per the records available with the Registrar of Companies, there was no mortgage/charge shown on the said flat. According to the complaint, believing the said assertions to be true and correct they decided to take over the control and ownership of M/s. Universal Finance and Traders Ltd.
4. As the new management was informed that the title deeds of the aforesaid flat had been misplaced by the previous management, the complainant company lodged a police report dated 21st June, 2007 with regard to loss of original title deeds.
5. In the FIR, it was further stated that as in August, 2011, the petitioner made certain queries from the complainant company with regard to the aforesaid flat, the complainant became suspicious and on enquiry it came to know that in a recovery suit bearing no. CS(OS)154/99 pending before this Court, the petitioner through his counsel, had offered the aforesaid flat for sale to offset an alleged debt taken from Mrs. Sudesh Madhok by M/s. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., M/s. Lunar Gold International Private Ltd., M/s. Lunar Finance and M/s. Sunrise Securities Ltd. and complainant company. It was also stated in the complaint that when the complainant intervened in the recovery suit proceedings, it was directed by the said Court to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2.25 crores in order to prevent the aforesaid flat from being sold and to secure the claim of the plaintiff namely Mrs. Sudesh Madhok.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (in short ‘ASJ’) while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has observed as under:-
“15. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the judgments.
16. The accused/applicant had made a statement before the Hon’ble High Court on 01.04.2011 in Civil Suit No.154/1999, wherein it was stated that “the documents relating to the flat were given to Mrs. Sudesh Malik”. In the Agreement to Sell dated 29.07.1998 it was mentioned that all the original documents of the Flat had been handed over to M/s Universal Finance Traders Ltd. On 01.04.2011, the accused/applicant could not have made a statement on behalf of the complainant company. Why had he made a statement is a fact known only to the accused/applicant. It was only on the assertion of the accused/applicant that the complainant company was directed to furnish the bank guarantee. The accused/applicant did not disclose to the comp
