The court ruled that a bail application should be denied where serious allegations of economic fraud exist, especially when the applicant is a habitual offender and poses a risk of tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Poonam A. Bamba, J. Vide this application u/s 439 Cr.P.C filed through Parokar/mother-in-law Smt. Neena Arora, the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR no. 56/2016, dated 11.06.2016, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS EOW.

2. The present case came to be registered on the complaint of Bank of Maharashtra alleging that the petitioner Ishma Arora, proprietor of M/s. Banke Bihari Trading Company availed Cash Credit facility of Rs.200 lakhs from Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Office Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, by mortgaging her property bearing no. H-5/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi on the basis of forged documents. Petitioner's husband A-2/Nitin Arora stood guarantor in the said Cash Credit Facility. Subsequently, it was revealed that the said property had already been mortgaged by the petitioner and her husband with other banks while availing credit facilities in the names of their different proprietorship firms namely, M/s Sunshine International, Rock Hudson Clothing India, Hi-tech Garments Company. Subsequently, the said account turned NPA with the outstanding balance of Rs.2.54 crores.

2.1. It is alleged that the aforesaid Cash Credit limit of Rs.200 lacs availed from Bank of Maharashtra was not utilized for the declared purpose and the said funds were rather siphoned off by the petitioner and her husband/accused no. 2 by diverting the same to bank accounts of their different proprietorship firms as under:

2.2. Para 6 of the status report provides the details of various transactions/diversion/rotations of funds to different accounts of other proprietorship firms of the petitioner and her husband/A-2.

2.3. Status report mentions that during investigation it was revealed that even the chain of title documents of the property in question including the Gift Deed in favour of the present petitioner/Ishma Arora executed by Smt. Leela Rani dated 18.02.2011, were forged and fabricated. Further investigation revealed that Smt. Leela Rani having expired on 31.10.2004, had not executed the said Gift Deed dated 18.02.2011. Even the e-stamp paper used for the forged Gift Deed was found to not have been issued by SHCIL and was forged. The letter dated 12.07.2011 regarding mutation of the aforesaid mortgaged property and receipt of property tax of Rs.10,744/- for 2011-2012, purportedly issued by MCD, were also found to have not been issued by the MCD.

2.4. Status report also mentions that the FSL Finger Print examination report dated 15.07.2021 confirmed that finger prints and thumb impression of purchaser, seller, donor, donee and even the witnesses on the aforesaid forged titled documents used by the petitioner/accused Ishma Arora and her husband A-2 Nitin Arora in availing the credit facility from the bank, were that of accused Suresh Kumar, employee of a close friend of petitioner's husband/A-2 Nitin Arora, namely Sandeep Khera, A5.

2.5. Investigation further revealed that several original looking copies were got prepared by the petitioner and her husband Nitin Arora/A-2 with the help of/in connivance with accused Sandeep Khera an