VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2022 › High Court of Delhi

Sunil Anand v. State ( Govt NCT of Delhi) and Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
11 July 2022
Bench
Talwant Singhauthor
Case no.
BAIL APPLN. 4520/2021

Judgment

TALWANT SINGH, J JULY 11, 2022/mr

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 11.07.2022 + BAIL APPLN. 4520/2021 SUNIL ANAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Surinder Anand, Adv. versus STATE ( GOVT NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State. SI Sandeep, PS EOW. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. This is a regular bail application for grant of bail filed by the petitioner in case FIR No. 0052/2017, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC in case registered with PS EOW District Shahadara, Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2020. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his role has been mentioned on page 45 of the Charge-sheet filed by the prosecution and the same is reproduced hereunder:- "ROLE OF ACCUSED SUNIL ANAND I. Sunil Anand impersonated as Rahul Sharma while applying for home loans with the lender Financial Institutions and signing Rent Agreement with Punit Aggarwal. II. He also appeared before the Sub- Registrar impersonating as Rahul Sharma in the time of registration of Sale Deed dt. 23.04.2015 executed by Sunita Babbar in favour of Rahul Sharma. III. Sunil Anand has also impersonated as Deepak Babbar, Nitin Sharma while opening bank accounts in these names. The loan amounts disbursed by Axis Bank and Reliance Home Financial Ltd were credited in Bank A/c No. 3427397910 of Sunita Babbar & Deepak Babbar. IV. The cheated loan amount was withdrawn under the signatures of Deepak Babbar which were authored by Sunil Anand. V. Forged title documents were prepared and submitted to banks/financial for getting the loan from these financial institutions." 3. It has been submitted that out of 18 accused persons, only two accused persons were arrested in the present case and role of other arrestd co-accused, namely, Sachin Sharma has been detailed in charge-sheet as under:- "I. Sachin Sharma was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy to cheat to the complainant & financial institutions on the strength of forged valuable security i.e. forged chain of title documents. His mobile no. 9971603396 is mentioned in Account opening Form of M.R. Enterprises, Ram Lal Textiles, Nitin Sharma and Home Loan application submitted to Axis Bank. II. Huge amount of approx. Rs. 6.5 Crores is taken as loan from Financial institutions on the basis of fake documents i.e. valuable security. III. Sachin Sharma has withdrawn the cheated money from the bank accounts of Mange Ram Sharma, his firms namely M/s M. R. Enterprises, M/s Ram Lal Textiles & Deepak Babbar. He continued to operate the bank accounts of Mange Ram Sharma even after his death. IV. He intentionally didn't inform the bank & financial institutions that his father has expired. He got Central Bank of India A/c No. 3325785579 of M.R. Enterprises, Proprietary firm of Mange Ram Sharma closed on 9.10.2015 informing that Mange Ram Sharma is suffering from ill health while Mange Ram Sharma has already expired on 21.04.2015. V. He had signed the registered Lease Deed Dt. 9.02.2016 with Rita Babbar enhancing the rent from Rs.54000 to Rs.65000.8" 4. It has also been mentioned that written complaint was made by the complainant Rita Babbar to EOW, Delhi Police against 17 delinquent persons on 29.07.2016 and in pursuance thereto the present FIR was registered. The present petitioner was not named in the said FIR; he was arrested by officials of EOW on 27.11.2020 after 3 years and 8 months of registration of the FIR in question. Charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court on 13.02.2021. The only role assigned to the petitioner is that he had impersonated himself as Rahul Sharma and as such the offence is alleged to have been committed only under Section 419 IPC and the maximum punishment for impersonation is three years. The complainant is the least aggrieved person as her title to the property in question has not been disturbed and it is the officials of the

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.