Raman Puri v. State of NCT of Delhi

O R D E R %

31.08.2026

¶1By virtue of the present application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.96/2020 dated 12.08.2020 registered at PS.: Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶2Written synopsis handed over by learned counsel for applicant along with a note on discrepancies qua the status of the applicant in FIRs pertaining to the Nominal Roll as well as orders granting bail to the applicant in other FIRs are taken on record.

¶3Similarly, written synopsis handed over by learned counsel for complainant is also taken on record. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶4Succinctly put, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant, i.e., the Authorised Representative of M/s. Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. (NBFC). As per FIR, one Mr. Chander Shekhar Juneja, co-accused person (Borrower) in collusion with the co-accused persons, i.e., Directors of M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Company), including the applicant herein, had created a false/ fictitious Conveyance Deed dated 16.09.2016 qua Property being Unit No. 62, ground floor, Universal Trade Tower, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana (Property), which was given as a security by the Borrower only to secure a loan.

¶5Thereafter, investigation revealed that cheques given for the sale consideration qua the Property bounced within two days of presenting them for encasement and the Property remained in possession of the Company when the complainant went for its inspection. In fact, although the total saleable area was 51,711 Sq. Ft. but the Company had sold an area of 1,14,441 Sq. Ft. of the Property to different persons including the applicant as a modus operandi to secure loans from NBFCs. Lastly, the Stamp Duty on the said Property was paid from the personal bank account of the applicant which is contrary to the Conveyance Deed since the same was the liability of the Borrower. Thus, as per prosecution since the applicant herein was both a Director and also a Shareholder of the Company at the relevant time, the Conveyance Deed was executed only to secure loan.

¶6The charge sheet has already been filed before the learned Trial Court, and the matter is currently at the stage of framing of charges.

¶7In this factual backdrop, this Court has heard learned counsels for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned APP, and also perused the materials on record. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶8What emerges is that the present FIR arises from a builder-buyer dispute whereby the NBFC had disbursed a loan amount to the Borrower for which the Property involved was mortgaged as a Security; and the Conveyance Deed was fictitiously executed only to secure the loan as the Borrower's cheques qua sale consideration of the said Property had bounced and Stamp Duty was paid by the applicant herein from his personal account being contrary to the covenants of the Conveyance Deed, as also that the Company had sold more than the saleable area available to various people.

¶9The aforesaid reflects that there was a pre-determined modus operandi of the Company to create fictitious title documents to be used as a Security in order to take loans from Banks and NBFCs to aid the Borrowers in securing such loans to ultimately de facto fund the construction of the projects. For this, the Company admittedly sold more than the saleable area to various people via different instruments. All this while, the applicant was not only the Authorised Representative of the Company but was also a Director and a Shareholder thereof as well. It was the applicant who paid the Stamp Duty from his personal account, even though it was admittedly the obligation of the Borrower herein as per the Convenance Deed.

¶10Therefore, prima facie, it can safely be inferred that the applicant, who was a principal character always involved all throughout in a dubious manner, was fully aware of the happenings and was acting with a pre-determined approach. At the end of the day, the Company is a family-owned entity wherein the other Directors with the applicant are also closely related to him.

¶11Factually, though the charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court and most of the evidence is documentary in nature as also CIRP The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. proceedings qua the Company have already been initiated, however, considering that the applicant is involved in more than seventy FIRs registered in Delhi, Gurugram and Faridabad, and most relevantly, taking into account the past conduct of the applicant since he was absconding for almost six years, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant may be a flight risk. Thus, the triple test is squarely attracted herein as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2020) 13 SCC 791.

¶12Hence, in view of the aforesaid as also in view of the settled legal position, the present application is dismissed.

¶13Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J. AUGUST 31, 2026/bh

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010048122026 + BAIL APPLN. 603/2026 RAMAN PURI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Mannat Singh, Mr. Pavan Vashishth, Mr. Abhyudai Mehrotra, Mr. Sanjeet Thakur and Mr. Kratiney Goel, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE