RAM NIWAS GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the applicant in a case arising out of FIR No.1794/14 lodged on 30th Sept., 2014 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mangolpuri.

(2.) The facts as emerge from the records, are that the complainant Saroj Jindal lodged an FIR against the applicant Mr. Ram Niwas, his wife Ms. Renu Gupta, his son namely Mr. Ritesh Gupta and Mr. Anand Singh Rawat, stating therein that the applicant along with his wife Ms. Renu Gupta floated a company in the name of M/s. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited and obtained a loan from Andhara Bank, Pitampura Branch, New Delhi and mortgaged the property bearing No. 170, Deepali, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. The complainant stated that with the consent of her husband and under the trust of her brother-in-law namely Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta (applicant herein), she created a mortgage over the property bearing No. 392, Deepali, Pitam Pura, New Delhi and that the applicant Sh. Ram Niwas Gupta, being the promoter Director and the shareholder of the company, obtained a fresh loan from Andhra Bank to the tune of Rs.15.50 crores which was sanctioned on 27th March, 2010. On the said date itself, the complainant executed the required documents for availing the loan facility and alleged that she was unaware of any enhancement of the loan amount. Upon being served notice under SARFAESI Act by the Andhra Bank, the complainant received the information regarding recalling of the loan facility. It was further alleged by the complainant in the FIR that on the same date of recalling of the loan, the amount due had been sufficient to clear the dues of the bank for the sale of property bearing No. 170, Deepali, Pitampura. Thereafter, for the purpose of recovery of dues, the bank had filed an Original Application No.116/2014 copy whereof was supplied to the complainant Saroj Jidnal on 12th Sept., 2014. The complainant has alleged that the bank has claimed the amount on the basis of enhancement of loan facility from 27th March, 2010 by granting an ad-hoc facility of Rs.3.00 crores on 20th Aug., 2010 as well as further executing documents with respect to letter of sanction dated 24th Jan., 2011 for an amount of Rs.20.00 cores sanctioned by Chief Manager of the Andhara Bank. The complainant has stated that the signatures on the guarantee form from pages 132 to 135 of the original application filed by the Bank, are forged and fabricated and that the complainant Saroj Jindal never executed any such documents. It was alleged that the accused persons including the applicant herein, have caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. The complainant in the FIR further alleged that the hand writing expert had submitted a report to the effect that the signatures on the documents dated 20th Aug., 2010 and 24th Jan., 2011 are not same.

(3.) Arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the applicant is that the FIR the applicant has already joined the investigation. The applicant, seeing the financial condition, associated his younger brother namely Mr. Dinesh Jindal (husband of the complainant Ms. Saroj Jindal) in his company as a result of which Mr. Dinesh Jindal started deriving benefits out of company and the complainant offered her property being 392, Deepali, Pitampura, for mortgage for the purpose of obtaining credit facilities. It was submitted that the property of the applicant i.e. 170, Deepali, Pitampura, was also mortgaged with the said Bank.