IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Rachin Bansal - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3836 of 2021
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 405, 406, 120B - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds – Punishment for Criminal breach of trust - Seeking anticipatory bail – “in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail (Para 27).
Finding of the Court :
Court has considered submissions made by both parties and in view of aforesaid discussions on facts, it is quite obvious that applicant and accused/company in which his father and uncle were Directors hatched a criminal conspiracy to obtain a separate loan from banks - This Court is also convinced that said loan was obtained in fraudulent manner - Keeping in view of serious nature of offence committed by applicant/petitioner, gravity of accusations, possibility of applicant to flee from justice and to tamper with evidence, also fact that investigation is at its initial stages and that custodial interrogation of applicant is required to unearth larger conspiracy i.e. involvement of other persons i.e. officers of bank and to recover huge amount involved in this case, applicant has no ground available with him to entitle him for being granted anticipatory bail.
Result : Application is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 263/2019 registered at Police Station EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi for offences punishable under Section 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The case of the complainant is that M/s Shri Balaji Beans Pvt. Ltd. (Accused No.1), its director Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bansal (Accused No.2), Mr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (Accused No.3) and the present applicant committed a default of Rs. 8 Crores.
3. M/s Shri Balaji Beans Pvt. Ltd approached the complainant bank requesting for sanctioned working capital facilities to the tune of Rs. 8 Crores, which was sanctioned on 14th December, 2017 and the sanction letter was countersigned by Mr. Ramesh Bansal.
4. Pursuant to the sanction, a loan agreement was executed on 16th December, 2017. The said credit facility was to revolve around 12 months line and was repayable on demand as per the term of the sanction letter. The said credit facility was agreed to be secured by way of equitable mortgage in addition to the deed of Guarantee. As per the stipulation in the deed of Guarantee the following properties were secured:-
ii. Industrial Property at Plot No.428, Food Park, Industrial Area, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana.
iii. Industrial Property at Plot No. 561, Food Park, Industrial Area, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana.
iv. Commercial Property at 3980-B, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006.
5. It is alleged that the accused persons did not adhere to the terms and conditions of sanctions and failed to make re-payment of the sanctioned amount.
6. It is also alleged M/s Shri Balaji Beans Pvt. Ltd. is not providing the insurance for their security hypothecated or mortgaged with bank.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant herein was neither a director nor a shareholder nor a managerial person who was conducting day-to-day affairs in the company i.e., 'M/s. Shri Balaji Beans Pvt. Ltd.' The applicant never had any knowledge of the transaction which occurred between the complainant bank and other accused persons. Moreover, the applicant is not even a borrower in the present matter. The applicant was only a guarantor in the alleged transaction which occurred between the complainant and other accused persons.
8. It is submitted that the applicant has been regularly appearing before the Investigating Officer and has assisted in investigation. The applicant had already surrendered his personal properties (basis of guarantee to loan) to bank without demur. It is submitted that the applicant surrendered all his assets to the complainant bank when the complainant bank invoked guarantee on 3rd January, 2019 by issuing a notice of invocation to the guarantors of the facility.
9. It is submitted that all the properties which have been surrendered by the applicant has equivalent value to the actual loan amount which has been sanctioned by the complainant bank to M/s Shri Balaji Beans Pvt. Ltd.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that transactions which is reflected from the FIR itself shows that the whole transaction is of civil nature moreover, the complainant bank has also filed recovery proceedings at Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Delhi and complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
11. It is further submitted that a bare pursual of the allegations as made in the FIR against the applicant, no offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust has been made out against the applicant. It is submitted that merely because a person has given a guarantee in a loan agreement, he cannot be made as an accused for an offence which he has not committed.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC is being made out against the applicant since in order to constitute the
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab
Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.