The case highlighted the need to balance the individual's right to liberty with the advisability of pre-trial incarceration, especially in commercial disputes that do not prima facie justify custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - The applicant seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Fir No. 48/2020, registered on 24th February, 2020 at P.S. Preet Vihar, arose out of a complaint filed by Mr. B.K. Verma, Managing Director of M/s. Espan Infrastructure (I) Ltd, Respondent No. 2 in the present application. The complaint alleged that (i) Shop No. 31 and 32, Ground Floor, CSC, Block-C, Nirman Vihar, Delhi - 110 092, were purchased by Respondent No. 2 in 2017, and Respondent No. 2 was, therefore, the sole and absolute owner thereof, (ii) Mr. Verma was informed, on 5th November, 2019, that the properties had been illegally transferred by the applicant in his name, (iii) on visiting the properties, Mr. Verma found that the applicant was illegally making constructions and alterations in the shops, (iv) enquiry, with the office of the Sub-Registrar revealed that the properties had illegally been transferred, by the applicant, in his name, with the help of Anand Kumar, a former employee of Respondent No. 2, using forged and illegal documents, bearing fake rubber stamp and seal, (v) Anand Kumar had resigned from the services of Respondent No. 2 in July, 2019, and was not authorised to sell the properties, (vi) no payment had been made, by the applicant to Respondent No. 2, by way of consideration for such sale and (vii) the applicant had, thereby, cheated Respondent No. 2, by transferring its property to himself using fabricated documents.

3. As against this, the version put forth by the applicant, in the present application, is as follows:

(i) The applicant was a civil contractor.

(ii) Respondent No. 2 was in need of money. The applicant was approached, by Respondent No. 2, with an offer that, if he furnished a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 6 crores, in favour of Respondent No. 2, he would be appointed as a Director of Respondent No. 2, and would also earn returns, on the secured amount, @ 3% p.a. An affidavit, to the said effect, was executed, between Respondent No. 2 and the applicant, on 7th October, 2015. 20,000 equity shares of Respondent No. 2 were issued, in favour of the applicant and his wife, by Respondent No. 2 on 24th December, 2015. A copy of the affidavit, dated 7th October, 2015, has also been placed on record.

(iii) Vide Board Resolution dated 29th April, 2016, Respondent No. 2 authorised the applicant, who was, at the time, a Director on the Board of Respondent No. 2, to purchase Shop No. 29. Vide similar Board Resolutions, the applicant was authorised, by Respondent No. 2, to purchase Shops Nos. 30, 31 and 32.

(iv) The shops were, therefore, purchased by the applicant, in the name of Respondent No. 2, in 2016 and 2017. Against the said purchase, the applicant paid Rs. 65 lakhs, to Respondent No. 2, between 24th August, 2016 and 17th May, 2017.

(v) Since then, the applicant has been in possession of the said shops.

(vi) Later, on disputes arising between the applicant and Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 falsely represented the applicant as having resigned from its Directorship on 19th

September, 2017.

(vii) On the assurance of the remaining Directors of Respondent No. 2, the applicant deposited a further amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in the bank account of Respondent No. 2, as consideration for being given ownership and possession of the aforesaid four shops, by execution of proper Sale Deeds. The applicant has annexed his bank statement, reflecting the payment of Rs. 95 lakhs, in total, in favour of Respondent No. 2.

(viii) On 6th August, 2018, Respondent No. 2 transferred the 20,000 shares, of the applicant and his wife, to one Mr. Satish Mishra and one Ms. Sneha Yadav, without providing any consideration or information to the applicant.

(ix) Vide Board Resolution dated 28th January, 2019, Respondent No. 2 authorised Anand Kumar to sell the aforesaid shops and take relevant decisions, in that regard, on its behalf. The said resolution reads thus:

"MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD ON TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 AT 2.30