Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: June 08, 2013
Judgment Pronounced on: July 01, 2013
+ Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013
NARENDRA KUMAR RAJGARHIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Adv. with
Mr.C.Mukund & Mr.Pankaj Jain,
Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
with I.O./Insp. Vivek Maheshwari,
EOW.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Madhav Khurana & Mr.Vishal
Malhotra, Advs. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned application for grant of
bail.
2. The following grounds on which the bail must be granted:
a. The Sessions court acted mechanically and did not apply his
mind and passed an order without appreciating the requirements
for the grant of bail, which are allegedly all in favour of the
petitioner.
b. He states that, out of all the banks that have allegedly been
subject to fraud, only one filed a criminal complaint, and that
too, was not against the petitioner, thus proving his bona fide
nature.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 1 of 6
c. The investigation of the case, with regard to the petitioner is
complete and there is no further need for custodial
interrogations and that the petitioner has willingly cooperated in
the investigation thus far.
d. The allegedly forged document was produced by the
complainant, and has no relation to the petitioner in the instant
case. Since, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi,
there is no possibility of him absconding.
e. Even after being incarcerated for 146 days by the Police
Officials, nothing incriminating was found against the
petitioner and further submits that the entire investigation and
arrest had been conducted in a mala fide manner and has caused
irreparable injury in one way or the other. Further, making
allegations against the petitioner’s son, who was not involved
in any manner, also throws light on the mala fide nature of the
investigation process.
f. Further, the petitioner has been experiencing medical problems,
for which the environment in a prison is unsuitable.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in September 2007, the petitioner and
his son, Prateek Rajgarhia approached the complainant bank, Yes Bank Pvt.
Ltd., for a Cash Credit and Term Loan, stating that it was necessary for his
firm, M/s. Texcomash Exports and offered to provide movable and
immovable properties as collateral.
4. The petitioner’s son executed a personal guarantee in favour of his
father a cash credit system with a limit of 4 Crores, against the loan. Loan
`
facility was enhanced to a further limit of ` 8.5 Crores. The petitioner had
rd
defaulted on his account and therefore, it was declared as NPA on 23
November, 2010.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 2 of 6
5. The property which had been given as collateral was allegedly a HUF
property. The complainant bank instituted proceedings under the
SARAFAESI Act and took possession of the land. It was revealed that the
petitioner and his father used the same property as collateral for loans from
various other banks.
6. The petitioner initiated proceedings before the DRT Tribunal,
wherein, he offered to pay 2 Crores upfront, provided that there is a stay on
`
the auction of the aforementioned property. Based on this, the DRT issued a
th
stay on 26 August, 2011. He did not make these payments. Moreover, it is
further alleged by the respondent that petitioner colluded with his daughter
to avoid payment, for they instituted an S.A. No. 73/2011, titled Ms. Milli v.
Yes Bank and Anr. wherein it was claimed that the property belonged to the
HUF and the same is not owned by petitioner therefore, such property
cannot be auctioned or put under any kind of restraint.
7. The bail application is strongly opposed by Mr.Mukesh Gupta,
learned APP for the State. According to him, the total outstanding as on
date is to the tune of 13 crores, as the petitioner through forged property
`
documents obtained the loan and he stopped paying the dues to the
complainant Bank who had taken the steps under the SARFAESI act, 2002
for payment of ` 9,91,94,751.64/- along with interest applicable.
th
8. By order dated 14 May, 2011, the ACMM inter-alia ordered that
possession of the mortgaged property be given to the Yes Bank Ltd. but
instead of handing over the smooth possession of the mortgaged property,
the petitioner got filed a S.A. No.73/2011 through his daughter Ms. Milli
Raj before the DRT-I claiming that the property in question belong to
N.K.Rajgarhia HUF. The petitioner had no right to mortgage the said
property, nor could ay Bank have taken a mortgage of HUF property. In
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 3 of 6
view thereof, the Yes Bank Ltd. the complainant filed a criminal complaint
th
with EOW on which the present case was registered on 28 January, 2012.
9. During the investigation, the record of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi
disclosed that the title deed of the property No.D-52, Second Floor, Defence
Colony, New Delhi exists in the name of N.K.Rajgarhia HUF, not in the
name of the petitioner individually. Further, the title deed of the plot olf
4580 Sq. Meters area in Vill. Junpat, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. G.B.Nagar, U.P.
also turned out to be forged.
10. During the investigation, it was also found as mentioned in the status
report that the petitioner is involved in committing similar offence on the
basis of forged and fabricated property documents for securing loans from
various other Banks/financial institutions also. The said property was also
mortgaged with M/s Citifinancials Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. The
original documents were deposited by the petitioner in the said Bank.
th
11. It is not denied by the learned APP that on 13 February, 2013 the
charge sheet against the petitioner is filed. However, investigation in respect
of a number of persons, namely, Pratik N. Rajgarhia, Sanjay Aggarwal,
Kapil Chugh, Kaushal Kumar, Manoj Garg, Prabhakar Kumar, Vipin Gupta,
Warris Hasan Khan, Farhat Najmi, S.K.Aggarwal, Advocate, Stamp
Vendors, whose names have come up as accomplices in the offence
committed by the petitioner is still pending. It is also stated that various
details of the money advanced are still to be traced. The investigation,
according to the learned APP, is at the very crucial stage and all the bogus
accounts to which monies were siphoned are yet to be traced.
12. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has raised an objection for intervening and advancing arguments
on behalf of the complainant. He argues that this Court should not consider
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 4 of 6
the argument of the complainant as it has no right to intervene in the present
proceedings. He submits that the charge sheet against the petitioner has
th
been filed on 14 February, 2013. The petitioner is now not required for
custodial interrogation however, if need arises, petitioner undertakes to join
the investigation and provide full cooperation with the investigation if
continued against the other accused as alleged by the respondent. After
some discussion, Mr. Sethi offers that his client shall arrange atleast a sum
of 2 crores and pay the same to the complainant Bank within short time
`
fixed by the Court.
13. Fresh application was filed by the complainant, being Crl.M.A.
No.9293/2013 for its impleadment as a respondent in the present case.
14. Notice is issued to the petitioner who may make his submissions on
the next date. Till the next date, without expressing any opinion on merit of
the case, coupled with the fact that charge-sheet against the petitioner has
been filed in the month of February, 2013, the petitioner be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1 lac with one surety of the
`
like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
15. As offer is made on behalf of petitioner who shall within four weeks
deposit a sum of ` 1 crore with the complainant from the date of release. He
th
shall also deposit further a sum of ` 1 crore by 30 August, 2013 with the
complainant. An undertaking by way of his affidavit would be filed within
three days from the date of his release.
16. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of
the Trial Court and shall join the investigation as and when called and will
not approach other accomplices.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 5 of 6
17. Liberty is granted to the respondent/State to get the order vacated if
the petitioner fails to comply any of the conditions mentioned in earlier para
of this order.
nd
18. List on 2 September, 2013 before the regular Bench.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
VACATION JUDGE
JULY 01, 2013
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 6 of 6
% Judgment Reserved on: June 08, 2013
Judgment Pronounced on: July 01, 2013
+ Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013
NARENDRA KUMAR RAJGARHIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Adv. with
Mr.C.Mukund & Mr.Pankaj Jain,
Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
with I.O./Insp. Vivek Maheshwari,
EOW.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Madhav Khurana & Mr.Vishal
Malhotra, Advs. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned application for grant of
bail.
2. The following grounds on which the bail must be granted:
a. The Sessions court acted mechanically and did not apply his
mind and passed an order without appreciating the requirements
for the grant of bail, which are allegedly all in favour of the
petitioner.
b. He states that, out of all the banks that have allegedly been
subject to fraud, only one filed a criminal complaint, and that
too, was not against the petitioner, thus proving his bona fide
nature.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 1 of 6
c. The investigation of the case, with regard to the petitioner is
complete and there is no further need for custodial
interrogations and that the petitioner has willingly cooperated in
the investigation thus far.
d. The allegedly forged document was produced by the
complainant, and has no relation to the petitioner in the instant
case. Since, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi,
there is no possibility of him absconding.
e. Even after being incarcerated for 146 days by the Police
Officials, nothing incriminating was found against the
petitioner and further submits that the entire investigation and
arrest had been conducted in a mala fide manner and has caused
irreparable injury in one way or the other. Further, making
allegations against the petitioner’s son, who was not involved
in any manner, also throws light on the mala fide nature of the
investigation process.
f. Further, the petitioner has been experiencing medical problems,
for which the environment in a prison is unsuitable.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in September 2007, the petitioner and
his son, Prateek Rajgarhia approached the complainant bank, Yes Bank Pvt.
Ltd., for a Cash Credit and Term Loan, stating that it was necessary for his
firm, M/s. Texcomash Exports and offered to provide movable and
immovable properties as collateral.
4. The petitioner’s son executed a personal guarantee in favour of his
father a cash credit system with a limit of 4 Crores, against the loan. Loan
`
facility was enhanced to a further limit of ` 8.5 Crores. The petitioner had
rd
defaulted on his account and therefore, it was declared as NPA on 23
November, 2010.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 2 of 6
5. The property which had been given as collateral was allegedly a HUF
property. The complainant bank instituted proceedings under the
SARAFAESI Act and took possession of the land. It was revealed that the
petitioner and his father used the same property as collateral for loans from
various other banks.
6. The petitioner initiated proceedings before the DRT Tribunal,
wherein, he offered to pay 2 Crores upfront, provided that there is a stay on
`
the auction of the aforementioned property. Based on this, the DRT issued a
th
stay on 26 August, 2011. He did not make these payments. Moreover, it is
further alleged by the respondent that petitioner colluded with his daughter
to avoid payment, for they instituted an S.A. No. 73/2011, titled Ms. Milli v.
Yes Bank and Anr. wherein it was claimed that the property belonged to the
HUF and the same is not owned by petitioner therefore, such property
cannot be auctioned or put under any kind of restraint.
7. The bail application is strongly opposed by Mr.Mukesh Gupta,
learned APP for the State. According to him, the total outstanding as on
date is to the tune of 13 crores, as the petitioner through forged property
`
documents obtained the loan and he stopped paying the dues to the
complainant Bank who had taken the steps under the SARFAESI act, 2002
for payment of ` 9,91,94,751.64/- along with interest applicable.
th
8. By order dated 14 May, 2011, the ACMM inter-alia ordered that
possession of the mortgaged property be given to the Yes Bank Ltd. but
instead of handing over the smooth possession of the mortgaged property,
the petitioner got filed a S.A. No.73/2011 through his daughter Ms. Milli
Raj before the DRT-I claiming that the property in question belong to
N.K.Rajgarhia HUF. The petitioner had no right to mortgage the said
property, nor could ay Bank have taken a mortgage of HUF property. In
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 3 of 6
view thereof, the Yes Bank Ltd. the complainant filed a criminal complaint
th
with EOW on which the present case was registered on 28 January, 2012.
9. During the investigation, the record of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi
disclosed that the title deed of the property No.D-52, Second Floor, Defence
Colony, New Delhi exists in the name of N.K.Rajgarhia HUF, not in the
name of the petitioner individually. Further, the title deed of the plot olf
4580 Sq. Meters area in Vill. Junpat, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. G.B.Nagar, U.P.
also turned out to be forged.
10. During the investigation, it was also found as mentioned in the status
report that the petitioner is involved in committing similar offence on the
basis of forged and fabricated property documents for securing loans from
various other Banks/financial institutions also. The said property was also
mortgaged with M/s Citifinancials Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. The
original documents were deposited by the petitioner in the said Bank.
th
11. It is not denied by the learned APP that on 13 February, 2013 the
charge sheet against the petitioner is filed. However, investigation in respect
of a number of persons, namely, Pratik N. Rajgarhia, Sanjay Aggarwal,
Kapil Chugh, Kaushal Kumar, Manoj Garg, Prabhakar Kumar, Vipin Gupta,
Warris Hasan Khan, Farhat Najmi, S.K.Aggarwal, Advocate, Stamp
Vendors, whose names have come up as accomplices in the offence
committed by the petitioner is still pending. It is also stated that various
details of the money advanced are still to be traced. The investigation,
according to the learned APP, is at the very crucial stage and all the bogus
accounts to which monies were siphoned are yet to be traced.
12. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has raised an objection for intervening and advancing arguments
on behalf of the complainant. He argues that this Court should not consider
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 4 of 6
the argument of the complainant as it has no right to intervene in the present
proceedings. He submits that the charge sheet against the petitioner has
th
been filed on 14 February, 2013. The petitioner is now not required for
custodial interrogation however, if need arises, petitioner undertakes to join
the investigation and provide full cooperation with the investigation if
continued against the other accused as alleged by the respondent. After
some discussion, Mr. Sethi offers that his client shall arrange atleast a sum
of 2 crores and pay the same to the complainant Bank within short time
`
fixed by the Court.
13. Fresh application was filed by the complainant, being Crl.M.A.
No.9293/2013 for its impleadment as a respondent in the present case.
14. Notice is issued to the petitioner who may make his submissions on
the next date. Till the next date, without expressing any opinion on merit of
the case, coupled with the fact that charge-sheet against the petitioner has
been filed in the month of February, 2013, the petitioner be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1 lac with one surety of the
`
like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
15. As offer is made on behalf of petitioner who shall within four weeks
deposit a sum of ` 1 crore with the complainant from the date of release. He
th
shall also deposit further a sum of ` 1 crore by 30 August, 2013 with the
complainant. An undertaking by way of his affidavit would be filed within
three days from the date of his release.
16. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of
the Trial Court and shall join the investigation as and when called and will
not approach other accomplices.
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 5 of 6
17. Liberty is granted to the respondent/State to get the order vacated if
the petitioner fails to comply any of the conditions mentioned in earlier para
of this order.
nd
18. List on 2 September, 2013 before the regular Bench.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
VACATION JUDGE
JULY 01, 2013
Bail Appl. No.666/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.9293/2013 Page 6 of 6