SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Vinay Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent


Table of Content
1. factual background of fraud case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for and against bail application (Para 7 , 8)
3. court's observations on bail application (Para 9 , 10)
4. final conclusion on bail dismissal (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. An application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 92/2016, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered at Police Station Barakhambha Road.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, the FIR was registered on directions of learned MM, Patiala House Courts under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint of Mr. Pradeep Gupta, AR, Standard Chartered Bank, who alleged that Rakesh Kumar Sharma (M.D.) and Vinay Sharma, (Director) (petitioner in the present case) executed various documents on behalf of M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. (ITCOL) in order to avail credit facility to the tune of Rs.30 Crores. Standard Chartered Bank agreed to consider the opening of `Letter of Credit Facility' as and when requested from the company. Subsequently, the facility was modified on the request of the company as Rs.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top