Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Navendu Babbar - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 913 of 2020
Decided On : 18-06-2020
Rebecca M John, Advocate, Manisha Parmar, Advocate, Swapnil Aeron, Advocate, G.M. Farooqui, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the rights of the accused, the victim, and the state, while emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Economic Offences - 420/467/468/471/120-B - The court discussed the legal provisions related to bail, the nature of the offence, and the severity of the punishment. It emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to balance the rights of the accused, the victim, and the state. The court granted regular bail to the applicant with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail during the pendency of the trial in a case involving allegations of economic offences under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant had been in judicial custody since 22.02.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation related to the applicant was complete, and the case would proceed primarily on documentary evidence. It noted that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave and granted regular bail to the applicant with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, and the grounds for continuing the applicant's judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the rights of the accused, the victim, and the state, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It considered the limited role of the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment in bail applications.
Final Decision: The court granted regular bail to the applicant with specific conditions, considering the completion of the investigation, the nature of the allegations, and the consequences of pre-trial detention.
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - The applicant is an accused in case FIR No. 88/2015 dated 30.06.2015 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS : Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime & Railways, Delhi and has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2020. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail during pendency of the trial.
2. To give a brief overview of the matter, the subject FIR came to be registered at the instance of complainant Arjun Singh who complained that in May, 2014 that one Kailash Bhatt approached the complainant and represented that his employer Navendu Babbar (the applicant) wishes to purchase an apartment, which however he cannot purchase in his own name. According to the complainant, Kailash Bhatt persuaded the complainant to purchase the apartment in the complainant''s name and thereafter transfer it to the applicant within 6 months. The complainant alleges that on this pretext Kailash Bhatt took certain identity documents from the complainant; and on 09.05.2014, Kailash Bhatt and the complainant approached Punjab National Bank, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi for a loan along with the applicant and one Ravi Kumar. At the bank, on the directions of Kailash Bhatt and the applicant, the bank officials got the complainant to put his signatures on several documents, which documents the complainant did not understand.
3. Other details apart, the complainant alleges that later he received a letter dated 09.01.2015 from the bank to the effect that he owed Rs.49,04,960/- to the bank against an equitable loan facility availed by him against property bearing No. L-2/19 Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi; and if the complainant did not repay the loan amount, the bank would take possession of the property. According to the complainant, he had never taken any loan from the bank and had nothing to do with the property. The complainant accordingly filed a complaint with PS : Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, on the basis of which the subject FIR has come to be registered.
4. There are 05 accused persons in the matter : Kailash Bhatt (complainant''s neighbour), Ganesh Singh (Bank Manager), Ravi Kumar (sole proprietor of one M/s Heico Electronics), Sheetal Garg (Chief Manager of the bank) and Navendu Babbar/applicant (sole proprietor of M/s Harshit Enterprises).
5. The essential allegations in the FIR are that on 05.04.2014 a savings bank account was opened; and on 06.05.2014 a housing loan account was opened at the bank in the complainant''s name ; that a loan of Rs.46,50,000/- was sanctioned against equitable mortgage of House No. L-2/19 Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi ; that a sale deed in respect of that property was executed by Ravi Kumar in favour of the complainant and registered at the concerned Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Delhi. The sale deed is alleged to be ''fake'' in that it pertains to a non-existent property ; and it is also alleged to be forged, inasmuch the complainant denies his signature/thumb impression on the document. The concerned Sub-Registrar of Assurances has also said that the sale deed is not on the official records of that office.
6. It is nobody''s case however that the applicant has signed the sale deed. The allegation is that the loan amount of Rs.46,50,000/- was credited by the bank to the complainant''s account; and was then disbursed to an account in the name of Ravi Kumar; who then further credited an amount of Rs.46,40,000/- (i.e. Rs. 10,000/- less than the loan amount) to the account of M/s Heico Electronic, which is the sole proprietorship firm of Ravi Kumar, which is engaged in the trade of electronic goods. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 07.05.2014, the sum of Rs.46,40,000/- was transferred from the account of M/s Heico Electronics to the account of M/s Harshit Enterprises, which is the applicant''s sole proprietorship firm at the Development Credit Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi.
7. Accordingly, the main allegation a
