IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the seriousness of economic offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the balance between individual rights and public interest in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - These applications have been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0041/2022 registered with Police Station: Economic Offences Wing, Delhi under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC').

Complaint:

2. The abovementioned FIR has been registered on a complaint made by one Smt.Sarla Sarda, stating that she is one of the Directors and Shareholders of M/s Shree Narsingh Educational Consulting Private Limited (in short, `M/s SNECPL'). She stated that she is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the said company. In the month of September 2021, she received a letter dated 11.09.2021, from M/s Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited (in short, `CIFCL') wherein she was informed that she along with five other persons had availed a Home Equity Loan vide loan account number mentioned therein and the same had been declared as Non-Performing Asset (in short, `NPA'). She was further informed that the said loan account had an outstanding amount of more than Rs.5 crores.

3. She states that, on inquiry, it was discovered that two different loans were obtained in the name of M/s SNECPL from CIFCL vide sanction letters dated 30.05.2019 and 07.08.2020. She stated that her signatures had been forged on the loan agreement.

4. For obtaining the said loans, the property of M/s.SNECPL, which was worth around Rs.10 crores, had been mortgaged with the bank.

5. As she made specific allegations against the applicants herein of having forged her signatures on these loan agreements, fearing arrest, the applicants filed the present bail applications.

Averments in the applications:

6. The applicants urge that the dispute between the applicants and the complainant is a family dispute and it is being given a colour of criminal prosecution by the complainant at the behest of the son of the complainant.

7. It was asserted that the father of the applicant-Ms.Ritu Jaju, that is, late Sh.Keshav Sarda, had purchased the property in the name of M/s SNECPL for the purpose of investment and eventually for building a school. The construction on the aforesaid property started in the middle of 2017 and, in fact, was completed before the deadline of March 2018 provided for the completion of the construction. It is further stated that as the father of Ms.Ritu Jaju was suffering from cancer, the medical expenses and even expenses for the construction on the said property of M/s SNECPL were borne by the applicants.

8. It is stated that 51% share in M/s SNECPL were transferred by late Sh. Keshav Sarda in favour of the applicants, that is, Ms.Ritu Jaju and Mr.Neeraj Jaju. Mr. Keshav Sarda unfortunately died in November 2018 due to his illness.

9. It is further alleged that faced with financial constraints, the Directors of the Company, including Smt.Sarla Sarda, who is the mother of the applicant/Ms.Ritu Jaju, applied for a loan from CIFCL. The loan was duly sanctioned for a sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 30.05.2019, on the mortgage of the property of M/s SNECPL. It is stated that the same was done with the knowledge and consent of the complainant. Thereafter, another loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 07.08.2020, for a sum of Rs.34,13,466/- which was obtained from CIFCL by M/s SNECPL.

10. It is stated that unfortunately, due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the company could not make the payment of the instalments for the loans availed, whereafter, the loan accounts were declared as NPA and action was taken by CIFCL for re-entering the property. The property of M/s SNECPL was eventually sold in an auction sometime in the middle of 2023 for an amount of Rs.6.90 crores.

11. It is further stated that as the complaint was under the influence of the brother of applicant/Ms.Ritu Jaju and he was trying to control the family assets, she sent a legal no