Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. K.P.Jayaram, Mr. Anurag Singh and Mr v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. The present applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) have been filed on behalf of the applicants seeking regular bail in case arising out of the FIR No. 489/2023, under Sections 420/467/468/471/475/406/120B/34/201/384 of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Mohan Garden. These applications are being disposed of by the present common judgment as they arise out of the same FIR. The applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024, i.e., Arun Sachdeva, shall be hereinafter referred to as applicant No. 1 and applicant in BAIL APPLN. 71/2025, i.e., Sangeeta Sachdeva, shall be hereinafter referred to as applicant No. 2.

2. The case of the prosecution against the present applicants, as per the status report dated 25.10.2024 authored by SHO, PS Mohan Garden, is as follows: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025

i) The present FIR was registered on behalf of the complainant Mahavir Prasad (Complainant No.1) and six (6) other persons, who are the family members of Mahavir Prasad, with respect to cheating and fraud of Rs.2,55,61,430/. It is the case of the complainants that the accused persons (the other two accused persons being the brother of the applicant No. 1, Sanjay Sachdeva, and his wife, Sonali Sachdeva) were known to them being family friends since last many years and the accused persons including the present applicants were in dire need of money and therefore, asked the complainants to lend money to them during time period between 02.04.2019 to 22.02.2021. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.96,50,000/- was paid to the accused persons, including the present applicants, by the complainants and when the complainants asked about the returning the payment from them, they expressed their inability to do so and offered to sell 7 properties to the complainants after paying a consideration amount over and above the loan amount. ii) It is alleged the complainants then paid an amount of Rs.97,67,020/- to the accused persons, including the present applicants, for purchasing the said 7 properties. It is further alleged that around

01.08.2022, the accused persons, including the present applicants, showed all the original title documents of all the 7 properties to the complainants and the latter agreed to purchase the aforesaid properties and asked the applicants to execute the sale deed in their favour, as the complainants had already paid a hefty amount to the accused persons. It is alleged that however the accused persons made an excuse that they Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 need to find other properties to shift their goods and articles and considering their prior relations, the complainants agreed to grant some time to them. As per the complainants, an online appointment was taken on 04.08.2022 for presentation of “Agreement To Sell Without Possession” and the same was fixed for 18.08.2022. On the said date, it was alleged that the accused persons, including the present applicants, before appearing at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri, threatened the complainants that they require more money otherwise, they will not execute the agreement. It is alleged that, under these circumstances, since the complainants had already paid huge amount, they agreed to pay more amount after the registration of the said agreement. The complainants paid a consideration amount of Rs. 27,72,860/- for each property in lieu of the execution of the aforesaid agreement for the 7 properties. It is alleged that, thereafter, between

23.08.2022 to 06.04.2023, the complainants also paid an amount of Rs.61,51,410/- through bank account transactions to the accused persons, including the present applicants, on their demand that they would not execute the deed in favour of the complainants, unless the latter pay further amount. It is thus, stated that the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.2,55,61,430/- to the accused persons, including the present applicants through their bank accounts. As per the complainants, applicant No. 1 has received an amount of Rs.84,77,140/- in his bank account and applicant No. 2 has received an amount of Rs.68,31,430/- in her bank account. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 iii) It is the case of the complainants that out of the 7 properties, 4 properties were already mortgaged with HDB Finance and 1 property was mortgaged with Sri Ram Finance Limited and rest of the 2 properties were mortgaged with Bhushan Batra and Meenu Chopra for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.41,50,000/- respectively. It is further alleged that complainants filed an application/objection before the concerned Sub-Registrar vide application dated 13.03.2023, not to execute further title deeds with respect to the aforesaid properties. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered in the present case and the investigation in the same was conducted.

3. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that out of 7 properties, 4 properties mortgaged with HDB Finance Services Limited had been cleared by two individuals, Suraj Vadhawan and Rajesh Vadhawan, who, thereafter, executed their agreement to sell of 3 properties. It is stated that the aforesaid persons have also filed a complaint dated 09.06.2023 at P.S. Hari Nagar against the persons mentioned therein including the present applicants and the same is also pending investigation. It is further stated that these properties were transferred in the name of Naveen Kumar by forging the NOC of three complainants, namely, Mahavir Prasad, Rekha and Rhythm Gautam. It is alleged that another property was transferred in the name of the sister of the applicant no. 1, namely, Meenu Chopra, wife of Sumit Chopra. It is alleged that during further enquiry, on 04.07.2023, the accused persons, including the present applicants, had submitted a photocopy of the 7 properties and e-stamp certificates of those properties when verified from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 Stock Holding Corporation of India, were found to be fake and fabricated. Similarly, photocopy of properties papers obtained/submitted from Naveen Kumar, Sumit Chopra and Bhushan Batra were also verified from Stock Holding Corporation of India and were found to be forged and fabricated. It was further revealed that another FIR No. 425/2023, under Sections 420/34 of the IPC has been registered against the accused persons including the present applicants by one Ruchi Gupta at P.S. Hari Nagar, which is pending investigation.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that original volume books No. 9239 and 9240, wherein the original No-objection Certificates were pasted, had been obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri and sent for FSL. The said FSL report has been placed on record by the complainants on applications which were listed before this Court on 29.04.2025, after the judgments, had been reserved in these applications. As per the said FSL report dated

16.04.2025, the specimen signatures of Mahavir Prasad, Complainant No.1, and Rekha, Complainant No.2, on the questioned original NOCs were found not to be of the same persons (respective complainants), whose signatures were sent for examination and regarding the specimen signatures of Rhythm Gautam, Complainant No.6, the FSL report has been sent with remarks that, “Further attempt can be made if admitted genuine signatures of similar model & design as appearing in the questioned signatures are procured & sent for examination.” On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and the matter is presently at the stage of consideration of point of charge before the learned Trial Court. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present FIR has been registered against the present applicants who are husband and wife and two other persons, namely, Sanjay Sachdeva and Saloni Sachdeva, who are brother and sister-in-law of the applicant No. 1 respectively. It is submitted that the applicant no. 1 and his brother used to run their business in the name and style of ‘Subhash Footwear’ and over a period of time, they had brought 7 immovable properties in Tihar village. It is submitted that complainant No. 4, Sushil Kumar (Brother of Mahavir Prasad), being a Government Servant working at Indira Gandhi Hospital, Dwarka, was known to the applicant No. 1 and his brother as a friend and other six (6) complainants are relatives of complainant No. 4 and reside at the same address. It is the case of the present applicants that the applicant No. 1 and his brother, Sanjay Sachdeva, had availed credit facilities from HDB Finance and Sri Ram Finance Limited for running their business and had mortgaged 5 out of the 7 properties owned by them. It is submitted that complainant No. 4 also started lending money at the rate of 2% per month to the brothers by transferring funds from the bank account of all the 7 complainants and the money used to be returned by the accused persons, including the present applicants, from the cash generated from their business during the period 2018-2022.

6. In March, 2022, it is submitted, that the applicants after COVID-19 lockdown suffered major losses in the business and they were forced to borrow more money from moneylenders as well as from their own family friends and relatives. It is pointed out that on 03.06.2021, the HDB loan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 account was declared an NPA (Non-performing Asset) and HDB Finance Services Limited (HDB FSL) issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and on 06.04.2022, the accused persons were called upon to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.40,23,968/-. It is submitted that on

04.03.2022, the said financial company (HDB FSL) started its recovery process and issued symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the said business entity of the applicant No. 1 and his brother. The said notice was placed on the mortgaged property and was also published in the local newspaper.

7. It is further submitted that on 22.08.2022, being aware of the aforesaid mortgage(s), complainant No. 4 induced the present applicants to execute 7 duly registered “Agreement To Sell Without Possession” in favour of 7 complainants with respect to seven immovable properties. It is pointed out that as per the clause 4 of the said agreement to sell, the sale was valid till

30.06.2023. It is the case of the applicants that the complainants were well aware of the factum of mortgage and for this reason, they did not take possession of the property despite allegedly paying 99% of the consideration amount. It is pointed out that despite allegedly filing their objection before the Sub-Registrar on 13.03.2023, the complainants kept on transferring money into the accounts of the accused persons, including the present applicants, without calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed in their favour. It is submitted that the applicants, with the help of the friends and relatives cleared the outstanding amount of HDB FSL and title deeds of the said 4 mortgaged properties were released and the applicants were in process of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 selling few others of their properties in order to settle the outstanding dues of the complainants as well as their own friends and relatives.

8. It is the case of the applicants that on 08.06.2023, when the complaint was filed by the complainants, they never called upon to execute the sale deed in their favour and instead complainant No. 4 started extorting from them unjustified sums of money and started putting exorbitant interest rates and other illegal charges and filed a complaint at Police Station, Mohan Garden. It is pointed out that on the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., on 08.06.2023, title of the all 7 properties was admittedly in the name of the applicants but the complainants never called upon them to execute the sale deed before the expiry of the agreement to sell, i.e., 30.06.2023.

9. It is the case of the applicants that after the expiry of the said period of the 7 agreements to sell, the present applicants executed 3 registered sale deed with respect to the 3 properties in favour of their friend Naveen Kumar on

03.07.2023. It is the case of the applicants that at the time of registration of the said sale deeds, they never filed any NOC(s) before the Sub-Registrar. It is pointed out that there is no mention of such NOCs in any of the sale deed and it was not even sought by the Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi. It is the case of the applicants that the alleged NOCs have been illegally inserted between the registered sale deeds to falsely implicate them.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that without FIR being lodged and only on the basis of the complaint filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 complainants, notices were sent to the accused persons, including the present applicants as well as their friends, relatives, and also, to banks and other institutions from 04.07.2023 to 18.12.2023 to join preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted that the applicants had cooperated with the Investigating Officer and had joined the preliminary enquiry for 6 months. It is submitted that the said enquiry could not have taken place without registration of FIR.

11. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 19.12.2023 and without serving any notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, the present applicants were arrested on 23.12.2023 from their residence. It is further submitted that as per the arrest memos, no grounds of arrest have been shown or supplied to the applicants. It is further submitted that co-accused, Sanjay Sachdeva, brother of applicant No.1, has been granted bail by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in BAIL APPLN. 2029/2024 vide order dated

06.08.2024. It is finally submitted that the applicants are in custody since

23.12.2023 and have undergone incarceration for more than 1 year 4 months. Chargesheet in the present FIR has been filed which runs into more than 1500 pages and total 37 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.

12. Reliance has also been placed on following judgments by learned counsel for the applicants in support of the present applications: - i) Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another1; ii) Gagan v. State (NCT of Delhi)2; 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:09.05.2025 18:02:54 BAIL APPLN. 3395/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 71/2025 iii) Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement3; iv) Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others4; v) State of Gujarat (in all the appeals) v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi and Anr.5; vi) V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan and Anr.6; vii) Aadit Palicha v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi7;

13. Per contra, learned APP for the State, assisted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants, has submitted that the complainants have already paid 99% of the consideration amount and balance 1% was to be paid before 30.06.2023. It is submitted that on

11.03.2023, balance consideration of Rs. 1,89,980/- in respect of all properties was paid to the accused persons including the present applicants in addition to Rs. 96,50,000/- originally paid to them as well as the additional amount of Rs. 99,60,020/- paid between January 2022 and August 2022. It is alleged that on 12.03.2023, the day after the entire payment was made, the complainant visited the subject properties to seek possession and found a sticker of HDB Finance (HDB Financial Services Limited) affixed on the property, and on next day, they raised/made an objection/complaint on

13.03.2023 before the Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri, requesting that in case of receipt of any proposal regarding the sale and purchase of the subject