BAIL APPLN./1982/2024 of MANISH SONI Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 1982/2024MANISH SONI.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Advocate.

versus

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R28.02.2025

1.The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1]seeks grant of regular bail in theproceedings arising from FIR No. 405/2015 dated 28[th]April, 2015, underSections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,[2]registeredat P.S. Vivek Vihar, District East Delhi.

2.Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:

2.1A complaint was lodged by one Mr. Satya Prakash Aggarwal allegingthat he purchased property bearing No. A-130, 02[nd]Floor, Vivek Vihar,[3]Delhi, from one Anita Thukral on 04[th]June, 2013 for INR 1,05,00,000/-. Hefurther alleged that on 22[nd]April, 2015, he received call from hisneighbour, informing him that bank official had visited the property

1 “CrPC”

2 “IPC”

3 “subject property”

intending to take possession of it. Upon inquiry, the Complainant discoveredthat the aforesaid property had been mortgaged with the State Bank ofIndia,[4]which was taking action due to the default in repayment of the loansecured against the property.

2.2The Complainant further alleged that accused persons, in connivancewith each other, had transferred the subject property among family membersthrough gift deeds and registered sale deeds, and subsequently, transferred itto the Applicant. The Applicant then took loan from SBI by mortgagingthe subject property, and later sold it to Anita Thukral, who in turn, sold it tothe Complainant. He further alleged that perusal of the documents filed bySBI revealed that all the accused persons had acted in conspiracy,fabricating documents to obtain loan from SBI, and to transfer the propertyamong themselves, with the sole intent of defrauding the Complainant. Thisled to the registration of the impugned FIR.

2.3During investigation, none of the accused persons, including theApplicant, cooperated in the investigation and absconded. On 6[th]February,2017, the Applicant, along with co-accused Monika Soni, Vilash Babbar,and Kashmiri Lal, was declared Proclaimed Offender, while NavenduBabbar was similarly declared on 26[th]November, 2018.

2.4Investigation further revealed that all the accused persons have beenimplicated in another case bearing No. RCBA1/2018/A0016, registered atPS: CBI, ACB, Mumbai, under Sections 120B read with Sections409/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) and (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.[5]The Applicant was in judicialcustody in the said case, and was subsequently presented before the trial

4 “SBI”5 “PC Act”

court, formally arrested, and taken into police remand.

2.5During interrogation, the Applicant acknowledged that the fundsreceived from Anita Thukral, arising from the sale of the subject property,were deposited into his savings account at either PNB or Kotak MahindraBank. As result, notices were issued to the banks, and the accountstatements were obtained, revealing the transfer of funds by the Applicant toother accounts. The investigation revealed that several companies had beenregistered in the name of the Applicant, who, in collusion with other co-accused, had misrepresented the financial data of the companies, disposed ofmortgaged properties, and sold them to Anita Thukral.

2.6Both the Applicant and his sister, co-accused Monika Soni, areimplicated in the crime of selling the mortgaged property to Anita Thukral.Furthermore, on 21[st]August, 2013, the Applicant submitted an affidavit toSBI, asserting that he was the rightful owner and in possession of the subjectproperty and had neither sold nor executed any General Power of Attorney(GPA) or created any charge or mortgage over it. However, it was revealedthat the Applicant had, in fact, sold the property to Anita Thukral on 11[th]July, 2011.

Applicant’s Case

3.Against the above background, counsel for the Applicant raisesfollowing grounds seeking grant of regular bail:

3.1Anita Thukral and her husband are the sole beneficiaries of theallegedtransactionsandbothhavedefraudedtheComplainant.Subsequently, they have become Prosecution witnesses, and the entire caseof the Respondent relies solely on their statements.

3.2The Applicant has been in custody since 24[th]July, 2023, and has

already spent more than one year and seven months in custody. Given thatthe investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed, thecontinued incarceration of the Applicant is no longer necessary.

3.3The charges have yet to be framed by the Trial Court, and theconclusion of the trial is expected to take substantial amount of time.

3.4The documents and articles that form part of the evidence havealready been seized by the Investigating Officer, and the Applicant is nolonger required for the purposes of further investigation.

3.5Co-accused Monika Soni has already been granted bail by theSessions Court vide order dated 1[st]April, 2024.

Respondent’s Case

4.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes thebail application, and makes the following submissions:

4.1The offence committed by the Applicant is of serious nature. TheApplicant, in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Navendu Babbar andother individuals, has defrauded the Complainant by selling mortgagedproperty. The accused persons have also defrauded the banks by submittingforged and fabricated documents to secure loans against mortgage.

4.2The Applicant had earlier absconded and was declared as PO,indicating that he is flight risk. Should he be granted bail, there is apossibility that he may abscond again.

4.3TheApplicanthasalsobeeninvolvedinCaseNo.RCBA1/2018/A0016 dated 27[th]June, 2018 under Section 120B read withSections 409/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sections13(1) & (d) PC Act registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, Mumbai; and Case No.RC-DAI-2018-A-0036dated16[th]November,2018underSections

120B/420/468/471 of IPC, registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He is,therefore, habitual offender.Analysis

5.The Court has duly considered the contentions presented by bothparties. The Prosecution has completed the investigation and the chargesheetstands filed. Although the allegations against the Applicant are serious innature,however,theProsecution’scasepredominantlyreliesondocumentary evidence and bank statements, all of which have already beensubmitted along with the chargesheet. Therefore, the possibility oftampering of evidence can be ruled out.

6.As regards the other cases against the Applicant, it is pertinent to notethat in FIR No. RC-DAI-2018-A-0036, the Applicant has been charge-sheetedwithoutbeingarrested.Additionally,inCaseNo.RCBA1/2018/A0016, he has already been granted bail on 22[nd]November,2024.

7.It is noted that the Applicant has been in custody since 27[th]July,2023. It is well established through catena of judgments of the SupremeCourt that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative.The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance ofthe accused person at the trial.[6]Having regard to the aforenoted facts, thecriminal antecedents, and without delving into the merits of the case, theApplicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for sumof INR 2,00,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a.The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and

6 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

when directed by the concerned IO;

b.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

c.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the Trial Court;

d.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

e.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

f.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.g.The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on every Friday ofevery month;

8.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

9.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

10.The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

FEBRUARY 28, 2025/d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J