‘Only being a woman cannot grant additional protection or rights to the accused’: Delhi HC refuses to grant anticipatory bail in bank loan fraud case
Justice Navin Chawla [11-01-2024]

Read Order: PREETI ANAND v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [BAIL APPLN. 4364/2023-DEL HC]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 19, 2024: In a case of conspiracy and bank fraud where the appellant along with other accused persons took loans from Punjab National Bank by misusing complainant’s firm name and his PAN & Aadhar credentials, the Delhi High Court has rejected the bail plea of the woman.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla was considering an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B/467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It was the case of the prosecution that the complainant, Mr. Surender Mohan, filed a complaint stating that he had received letters from the Punjab National Bank, Kalkaji Branch (PNB) with regard to an alleged term loan account in the name of one M/s. Harpreet Impex, which was stated to be a partnership firm of which he was alleged to be one of the partners. He denied having any connection with the said firm or having availed or taken any such loan.

On inquiry, it was found that his Aadhaar Card and Pan Card had been misused by the applicant for claiming that he was a partner in the said firm and a Partnership Deed allegedly bearing complainant’s signatures was produced before the bank. The Partnership Deed bore a photograph of a different person. It was further alleged that the term loan got sanctioned by mortgaging a flat which, stood in the name of the daughter of the complainant, who had been residing in London. It was further alleged that the said property had already been sold by him, as a Power of Attorney of his daughter, to a third party.

The complainant had earlier entered into negotiation with one Mr. Ravi Gehlot and his wife Mrs. Kiran Gehlot, who were also the accused in the present FIR. The complainant alleged that he had handed over the property papers of the said property along with a copy of his Aadhaar Card, copy of the Passport, and the Pan Card of his daughter, to Ravi Gehlot as he had represented that he would require a loan for purchasing the said property. The complainant alleged that misusing the said papers, the above loan transaction was entered into by the accused in connivance with each other.

The applicant contended that the allegations against her were all based on documentary evidence. All such documents had already been retrieved by the prosecution and, therefore, there was no need for a custodial interrogation of the applicant. The Court was also made aware of the fact that pursuant to the interim bail, the applicant had duly joined the investigation and she had also undertaken to join the investigation as and when called.

The applicant further submitted that she is a woman having roots in the society and is not a flight risk. She also has to take care of two children and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that she be granted an anticipatory bail.

On the contrary, the State Counsel submitted that the applicant could be termed as a habitual offender inasmuch as the earlier FIR was also lodged on similar allegations against the applicant. The applicant was also the beneficiary of the ill-gotten money.  Further, investigation had revealed that the alleged Partnership Deed showed the applicant herein as one of the partners of M/s Harpreet Impex. It was alleged to have been further revealed that the applicant along with her husband, a co-accused, had applied for the alleged loan on the basis of allegedly forged and fabricated documents.

The Bench noticed that the allegations made against the applicant were rather severe. It had been alleged that she actively connived along with the co-accused in projecting herself to be a partner along with the complainant/informant to obtain an overdraft facility from the bank. In the said transaction, the property belonging to the daughter of the complainant was mortgaged illegally without any authority.

The High Court took note of the fact that the complainant/informant had stated that the said property, in fact, stood sold to a third party prior to the date of the transaction. “This would involve multiple victims facing consequences for the acts of the conspiracy that has been alleged against the applicant. The entire extent of this conspiracy and the manner of its execution are yet to be unearthed fully by the prosecution”, it remarked.

The Bench also opined that though the applicant had submitted that the amount that was received by the applicant from the partnership firm and from the co-accused, stood transferred to her husband, but it couldn’t be denied that she did first receive this money. What was her exact role in the same can only be unearthed by further investigation, the Bench added.

It was also noticed that she earlier tried to evade investigation and Non-Bailable Warrants had to be issued for seeking her production. The prosecution had alleged that there was another FIR with similar allegations against the applicant. Though, the applicant stated that the dispute giving rise to the said FIR had been settled with the complainant/informant therein but the Bench opined that would give rise to a suspicion that similar modus operandi had been used by the applicant in more than one case. The same would again require custodial interrogation of the applicant, the Bench added.

Dismissing the application, the Bench said, “Only being a woman cannot grant additional protection or rights to the accused.”