Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Naresh Garg - Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1696 of 2022 and Bail Appln. 1697 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, directors of a public limited company, in a case involving allegations of forgery and fraudulent transfer of shares. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted as the investigation was largely complete and the applicants had cooperated with the investigation. The court also noted that the applicants had deposited Rs. 5 crores as a condition of interim protection from arrest and ordered the release of the FDR to the applicants.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, directors of a public limited company, were accused of forgery and fraudulent transfer of shares. The applicants had been granted interim protection from arrest subject to the deposition of Rs. 5 crores in the form of FDR in the name of Registrar General.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted as the investigation was largely complete and the applicants had cooperated with the investigation. The court also noted that the applicants had deposited Rs. 5 crores as a condition of interim protection from arrest and ordered the release of the FDR to the applicants.
Issues: Whether custodial interrogation of the applicants was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted as the investigation was largely complete and the applicants had cooperated with the investigation. The court also noted that the applicants had deposited Rs. 5 crores as a condition of interim protection from arrest and ordered the release of the FDR to the applicants.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
The present common order shall decide two bail applications bearing no. 1696/2022 and 1697/2022 filed by the applicants Naresh Garg and Nirmala Aggarwal respectively under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. 445/2020 dated 16.06.2020. registered under sections 420/468/471/34 of the Penal Code, 1860, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) at P.S. Vasant Vihar.
2. FIR bearing no. 445/2020 was got registered on basis of complaint made by Tript Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) regarding fraudulent transfer of 62,500 equity shares of Genesis Finance Ltd. owned by the complainant on 10.05.2016. in favor of Nirmala Devi by committing forgery and in FIR Genesis Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the accused no. 1”), Naresh Garg, Managing Director of Genesis Finance Ltd. (the accused no. 2/applicant in bail application no. 1696/2022 and hereinafter referred as “the applicant no. 1”), Gopal Bisht, CFO & Whole Time Director of Genesis Finance Ltd. (the accused no. 3), Sangeeta Garg, Whole Time Director of Genesis Finance Ltd.(the accused no. 4), Kapil Berera, Ex-Director of Genesis Finance Ltd.(the accused no. 5), Umang Sarkar. Director of Genesis Finance Ltd.(the accused no. 6), Aashish Ghai, Director of Genesis Finance Ltd.(the accused no. 7), Nirmala Devi (the accused no. 8/applicant in bail application no. 1697/2022 and hereinafter referred as “the applicant no. 2”), Sanjay Prasad Jain (the accused no. 9), Kavita Bhulani (the accused no. 10), Roohi Reshi (the accused no. 11), Skyline Financial Services (the accused no. 12), Swaroop Narain Agarwal (the accused no. 13) and other unknown persons were implicated.
3. The complainant alleged that he is owner of 62,500 equity shares of the accused no. 1 which were transferred on 10.05.2016. in favour of the applicant no. 2 who never purchased these shares from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that 50 equity shares alleged to be owned by Sanjay Prasad Jain (the accused no. 9) were transferred on 14.10.2017. in his favour which he never purchased from Sanjay Prasad Jain; 100 equity shares stated to be owned by Kavita Bhulani (the accused no. 10) were transferred on 30.12.2017. in favour of his wife namely Preet Kaur and his wife never purchased these shares; and 300 shares owned by the complainant were transferred on 30.12.2017. in favour of Roohi Reshi (the accused no. 11) who never purchased these shares from the complainant.
4. The accused no. 1 is a Listed Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, (CIN L65910DL 1990PLC040705) and presently listed on Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India. The accused no. 1 on 27.11.2008. had allotted its 62,500 equity shares in favour of the complainant and on 10.05.2016. these equity shares were fraudulently transferred in favour of the applicant no. 2 who is a relative of the applicant no. 1.
5. The applicant no. 1 (appointed on 10.07.1994.), Gopal Bisht (the accused no. 3 and appointed on 30.06.2004.), Sangeeta Garg (the accused no. 4 and appointed on 27.11.1997.) and Kapil Berera (appointed on 02.03.1995.) were the Directors of the accused no. 1 at the time of allotment of 62,500 shares i.e. on 27.11.2008. besides others. The applicant no. 1 (appointed on 10.07.1994.), Gopal Bisht (the accused no. 3 and appointed on 30.06.2004.), Sangeeta Garg (the accused no. 4 and appointed on 27.11.1997.), Kapil Berera (the accused no. 5 and appointed on 02.03.1995.), Umang Sarkar (the accused no. 6 and appointed on 14.08.2014.) and Aashish Ghai (the accused no. 7 and appointed on 21.08.2015.) were the directors of Genesis Finance Ltd. at the time of fraudulent transfer of 62,500 equity shares in favour of the applicant no. 2 on 10.05.2016.. The above persons were also directors on 14.10.2017. when Sanjay Prasad Jain i.e. the accused no. 9 had transferred 50 equity shares in favou
AI
Custodial interrogation is not warranted when the investigation is largely complete and the accused has cooperated with the investigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court considered the civil nature of the dispute, the filing of a company petition, and the absence of misuse of anticipatory bail in gran....
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of fraud, necessity for custodial interrogation, and applicants' absconding status.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
