VINAY SHARMA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 92/2016 under Ss. 420/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that one R. K. Sharma and Vinay Sharma (petitioner herein), on behalf of M/S Indian Technomac Company Ltd (ITCOL), executed various documents in order to avail Banking Facility to the tune of Rs.30.00 crore. It is further alleged that the bank agreed to consider opening of 'Letter of Credit,' as and when requested by the company. Subsequently, the facility was amended on the request of the company and amount of Rs.10.00 crores (out of Rs.30.00 crores) was sanctioned by way of overdraft and remaining Rs.20.00 crores by 'Letter of Credit' (LC) facility. Further, it is alleged that as per request of the alleged company, Letter of Credits amounting to Rs.20.00 crores were issued in favour of the raw material supplying companies but the said amount was not paid back by the alleged company. The alleged company also did not return the amount of Rs.10.00 crores used by way of overdraft facility. As a result, on the complaint of Shri Pradeep Gupta, Senior Relationships Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, the application under Sec. 156(3) was allowed by the Magistrate and the present FIR was registered.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23/6/2021 and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was only a salaried director in the company and he was neither a promoter nor a beneficiary of any amount from the accused company or the complainant bank. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the gravity of the offence alone cannot be a ground for denying the bail and complete factors are required to be balanced. He further submitted that all the evidences pertaining to the present FIR are documentary in nature have been seized by the investigating agencies, therefore, there are no chances of tampering with the evidence or the witnesses. He further submitted that the object of the bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. He further submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of this country, has roots in the society, and has a family to support.