Pillai Vilayil Satyan Pillai v. State of Haryana Haryana and others
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB & HARYANA 101 CRM-M-38768 Date of decision: 38768-2022 (O&M) decision: 04.11.2025 Pillai Vilayil Satyan Pillai ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate Present :- Mr. Mr. R.K. Pillai and Mr. Devesh Nehra, Mr. for the petitioner. Advocate assisted by Nehra, Advocates, Dr. Haryana. (Ms.) Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate, for respondent Mr. respondent No.2. Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate, for respondent Mr. respondent No.3. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) ***** The instant second petition has been The been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case case bearing FIR No.184 dated 18.04.2021 18.04.2021 registered under Sections 419, 420, 420, 467, 471, 120B of the Indian Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Palam Vihar, Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana. 2. The petitioner, a 73-year-old man, has The has approached this Court for seeking anticipatory anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR FIR registered against him on the complaint of of Kamal Kumar, son of late Bhim Bhim Sen, resident of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi. According to the complaint, complaint, Kamal Kumar is the owner of property No. No. E-2260, Block-E, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, having SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 2 purchased the same same vide a sale deed dated 30.03.2001. 30.03.2001. In January 2020, he came to know that
Legal Reasoning
that one Mr. Vilayil Satyan Pillai, Pillai, resident of Pandav Nagar, Delhi, was trying trying to sell his property through brokers in Palam Vihar. On making inquiries inquiries with the Sub-Registrar, Gurugram, Gurugram, the complainant discovered that Mr. Pillai had already got the property property registered in his own name through a a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2019, 21.11.2019, by allegedly using forged PAN and and Aadhaar cards and impersonating impersonating the complainant. The complainant further further claimed that the photograph, photograph, signature, and address in the impugned sale sale deed were all fake. It was further further alleged that Mr. Pillai had obtained a loan loan of Rs.2 crores from ICICI Bank, Noida, by mortgaging the property registered registered in his favour on the basis basis of the forged sale deed, even though the the original title documents were still still with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Ltd., Gurugram. A fake bank account account was also said to have been opened in in the name of “Kamal Kumar” Kumar” at ICICI Bank, Sector 15, Gurugram, where where Rs.1.62 crores from the loan loan amount was credited and later transferred transferred to Neeraj Kumar, who allegedly allegedly withdrew the money in cash. It was further further stated that Mr. Pillai and and his wife were running a business named M/s Trade Link (India) from Laxmi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Based on these allegations, allegations, an FIR was registered against against the accused persons and others said to be be involved in the alleged fraudulent fraudulent transaction. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing Learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading plastic, was approached proached by two persons, namely namely Jaideep and Narender, both known to his Chartered Chartered Accountant, in connection connection with the purchase of a SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 3 property bearing bearing No. E-2260, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring 250 square meters. ers. It was represented to the petitioner petitioner that the said property could be purchased purchased for a total sale consideration consideration of Rs.2.10 crores. Relying on the said assurance assurance, an Agreement to Sell dated dated 05.10.2019 was executed with one Kamal Kamal Kumar, who was introduced by by Jaideep and Narender as the owner of the plot. plot. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/ 1,00,000/- as token money on the same day and subsequentl subsequently transferred a further sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the vendor through RTGS RTGS in the name of LGCL Properties, Properties, a company managed and operated by by the said Kamal Kumar and his his associates. Thereafter, the petitioner applied applied for a housing loan in the name name of his wife, Smt. Geeta Pillai, Proprietor Proprietor of M/s Trade Links India, New New Delhi, for the purchase of the said property. property. All original title documents, documents, including the conveyance deed, sale deed, deed, and other relevant records executed executed in favour of Kamal Kumar, were deposited deposited with the Bank and duly duly verified prior to sanction of the loan. The loan loan amount of Rs.1.62 crores was was thereafter sanctioned by ICICI Bank, and and the sale deed was executed on 21.11.2019. The Bank’s representative ha handed over the demand draft for for Rs.1.62 crores to Kamal Kumar at the office of the Sub-Registrar. The The said demand draft was deposited by Kamal Kamal Kumar in his ICICI Bank Bank account, from which the entire amount was was subsequently withdrawn. However, However, when the petitioner attempted to raise raise construction on the said property, the true owner, respondent Kamal Kamal Kumar, objected, leading to to registration of the present FIR. 4. Learned Sen Senior Counsel appearing on behalf behalf of the petitioner has SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM advanced the following following submissions:— 4 (i) It is is contended that the petitioner petitioner himself is a victim of the fraudulent acts of others, having fraudulent having acquired the property in question on the assurances of Jaideep question Jaideep and Narender. The said individuals introduced an impersonator individuals impersonator as the original Kamal Kumar, who not only possessed Kumar, possessed genuine identification documents but was also in custody documents custody of all original documents pertaining to the title over the property. pertaining property. In such circumstances, the petitioner had no reason to doubt the authenticity or ownership of the person presented as ownership as Kamal Kumar. (ii) The petitioner handed over all original original documents to ICICI Bank for verification and due diligence. The The Bank undertook scrutiny, including evaluation, verification, includ and spot inspection through its assessors assessors and evaluors. Upon finding finding all records in order, the Bank sanctioned the loan amount. Bank (iii) The The loan amount was disbursed directly directly in favour of Kamal Kumar, and the demand draft was de Kumar, deposited and encashed in his name. The petitioner, therefore, had name. had no direct monetary dealings with Jaideep, Narender, or the impersonator with impersonator who projected himself as Kamal Kumar. The transaction himself transaction was carried out in good faith based on genuine documentation good documentation that later turned out to have have been procured through fraudulent fraudulent means. (iv) The The petitioner is a senior citizen aged aged 73 years and has never been involved in any criminal case been case of any nature. He has duly SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 5 joined investigation pursuant to the joined the interim protection granted vide order dated 23.09.2022, and no vide no recovery is required to be effected from him. effected (v) It is argued that the petitioner, far from from being a beneficiary, has suffered a substantial loss, having lost suffered lost the property as well as is being burdened with repayment being of the bank loan. Had the petitioner been complicit in the offence, petitioner offence, there was no reason for him to enter into an open, documented him documented transaction, supported by lawful disclosures, while the real lawful real culprits concealed their identities and fabricated records for identities for execution of the sale deed. (vi) The entire case rests on documentary documentary material already seized and available with the Investigating available Agency. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner serves interrogation serves no purpose, as there is no recovery or discovery to be made fro recovery from him. (vii) The The petitioner has scrupulously complied complied with the conditions of interim protection and has not interim misused the concession of anticipatory bail in any manner, which anticipatory which reinforces his bona fides. (viii) It is further submitted that Jaideep Jaideep and Narender, along with their associates, are involved in their as many as eleven other criminal cases of a similar nature, criminal nature, as recorded by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram. Commissioner Gurugram. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was accordingly constituted Team constituted under the directions of the Commissioner. The SIT, upon investigation, has not found any material linking the petitioner any petitioner with the said group or SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 6 syndicate. In view thereof, it is syndicate. argued that the petitioner deserves the protection of pre-arrest deserves arrest bail. 5. Learned State Counsel, while not Learned disputing that the petitioner has joined the investigation, investigation, contends that as per per the prosecution version, the petitioner had allegedly allegedly paid a total sum of Rs. Rs.48,00,000/–, out of which Rs.40,00,000/– was paid in cash and handed ded over to certain persons purportedly known known to Kamal Kumar. It is alleged alleged that the said amount was deposited in the the account of LGCL and thereafter thereafter re-routed to an under- guardian account account of the petitioner‘s daughter before before being transferred back to LGCL, indicating indicating a circular movement of funds. funds. It is further submitted that the details regarding regarding the remaining sum of Rs.8,00,000/– have not been satisfactorily explained, explained, and that the cheque relating relating to the said amount is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned State State Counsel also argues that the petitioner, in in conspiracy with co-accused persons, has defrauded the Bank to the tune tune of Rs.1.62 crores and succeeded succeeded in getting the sale deed of plot No. E-2260, 2260, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, executed executed in his favour, thereby wrongfully divesting divesting the true owner of the property. property. It is thus contended that the full extent and and manner of the operations can can only be ascertained upon custodial interrogation interrogation of the petitioner. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of Counsel the respondent-complainant under: submits as under: (a) That That the property in question is owned by the complainant himself and that the petitioner has himself has indulged in a clandestine transaction involving Rs.40,00,000/ transa 40,00,000/–, which was allegedly paid SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 7 in cash cash to certain persons identified identified by the impersonators. It is submitted that the said amount was submitted was deposited in the account of a company, company, namely LGCL, thereafter thereafter routed through the account of the petitioner’s daughter, account daughter, and ultimately returned, thereby indicating a suspicious financial thereby financial arrangement. (b) That That such re-routing of funds was was wholly unnecessary in the ordinary course of a genuine sale transaction ordinary transaction and, therefore, the transaction cannot be regarded as transaction as bona fide. It is further submitted that there exists no credible submitted credible evidence on record to establish tablish that the payment made in in favour of LGCL was ever connected to the individual who impersonated connected impersonated the real owner, Kamal Kumar, and thus, no lawful Kamal lawful cognizance of the said amount can be taken. amount (c) That the petitioner, in his statement of account, falsely depicted the payment made to LGCL as a payment made to Kamal Kumar, and on the strength of such Kumar, such misrepresentation, projected before the Bank that the said amount before amount constituted an advance towards the sale consideration. By towards By doing so, the petitioner succeeded in securing a loan of succeeded Rs.1.62 crores, though the transaction lacked any legitimate linkage transaction linkage to the true owner. It is thus contended that the petitioner’s thus petitioner’s complicity in the fraudulent transaction, in collusion with other transaction, other accused persons, stands clearly established. clearly (d) That That the complainant’s property continues continues to remain under lien SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 8 with the respondent-Bank, despite with the fact that the complainant never executed any sale deed or conveyed never conveyed any right in respect of the the said property. As a result, an an unlawful charge has been created over the complainant’s property, created property, to his detriment, for which the custodial interrogation of which of the petitioner is necessary. (e) That the present petition is the second second one filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. The earlier seeking earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.04.2022 without any withdrawn any liberty to file afresh. No change in circumstances has since change occurred to justify the filing of the the present petition on the same cause of action. It is further pointed out that even while granting pointed granting interim protection vide
Decision
order dated 29.09.2022, this Hon’ble order Hon’ble Court had kept the question of maintainability of question the second petition open. Accordingly, the present petition Accordingly, for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in law. maintainable 7. Counsel for the respondent-Bank submi Counsel submits that although all the original title documents documents were duly handed over over and a valid charge was created over the the property in question, it has subsequently subsequently come to light that the sale deed executed executed in favour of the petitioner petitioner was executed by an impersonator posing posing as Kamal Kumar, the true true owner of the property. It is further contended contended that the said impersonator and and other involved persons are presently untraceable, untraceable, as a result of which the Bank has been defrauded to the extent of Rs. Rs.1.62 crores. Learned counsel adds adds that at the initial stage, the petitioner had had expressed willingness to repay repay the loan amount; however, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 9 no concrete steps steps have since been taken by him him to secure or protect the Bank. interests of the Bank. 8. I have have heard learned counsel for the the respective parties and have gone through the the documents appended along with with the present petition. 9. While addressing the preliminary While preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition, I am of of the considered view that although the contention contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent- complainant may may not be entirely devoid of merit, merit, yet the same does not warrant adjudication adjudication at this stage. It is pertinent pertinent to note that when the present, second petition for grant of anticipatory anticipatory bail was initially filed, no interim protection protection was granted to the petitioner, petitioner, and he was instead directed to implead the the complainant as a necessary necessary party. Subsequently, on 26.09.2022, learned counsel for learned the respondent respondent-complainant entered appearance before before this Court, and it was only thereafter, thereafter, on 29.09.2022, that interim protection protection was extended in favour of the petitioner after granting hearing to all parties parties. The objection regarding maintainability maintainability was recorded, and the issue was was expressly kept open for consideration consideration at a later stage. Be that as it may, with with the passage of a period of time of over three years, the said objection has, has, in my considered opinion, lost lost its practical relevance. It would not be appropriate appropriate at this advanced stage stage to revert to the preliminary technicalities when when the conduct of the petitioner petitioner during the entire intervening period, period, under the umbrella of interim interim protection, remains available for judicial judicial scrutiny. 10. Hence, the peculiar facts of the present Hence, present case, the said objection SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM is overruled. 10 11. Now adverting to the issue as regards Now regards the necessity of custodial detention of the petitioner and as to whether the the anticipatory bail ought to be confirmed in his his favour. 12. I am am of the considered opinion that, that, at this stage, the petitioner merits the concession ncession of anticipatory bail for the the following reasons: (i) The The petitioner is a senior citizen, aged aged about 73 years (now 76 years) at the time of filing of the present years) present petition. It also stands undisputed that he had entered into undisputed into an agreement to sell with respect to the property in question and respect and had obtained a loan from the concerned bank for its purchase. purchase. The investigation conducted thus far does not reveal conducted reveal that the petitioner had derived or received any portion derived portion of the alleged proceeds amounting to Rs.1.62 crores. Consequently, amounting Consequently, the existence of a prima facie nexus linking the petitioner prima petitioner as a direct beneficiary of the the alleged fraud upon the bank bank appears unsubstantiated at this stage. this (ii) Th The case at hand rests substantially substantially upon documentary evidence, all of which is already evidence, already in possession of the Investigating Agency. Custodial interrogation Investigating interrogation of the petitioner does not appear necessary for the does discovery of any fresh fact. The petitioner has, in any event, joined The joined investigation on four separate occasions. The plea of separate the State Counsel that the petitioner’s custodial detention is petitioner’s required for recovery of a SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 11 cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- is evidently cheque evidently without basis, as there is no reference to such cheque in the agreement reference agreement to sell or in any contemporaneous document. The said contemporaneous said contention rests solely on the disclosure statements, which by themselves hold limited evidentiary value at this stage. evidentiary (iii) It further emerges from the record record that the impersonator in question uestion was in possession of all original original documents relating to the conveyance, sale, payment, and and allotment of the property. Hence, the possibility of the petitioner Hence, petitioner having been induced or deceived into purchasing the property deceived property from such impersonators cannot be wholly ruled out. Additionally, cann Additionally, it has come on record that the said impersonators were involved that involved in as many as eleven other criminal cases of similar nature, other nature, lending some credence to the contention that the petitioner too may have been duped. Nevertheless, this is a matter to be Neverthe be examined during the course of trial, trial, and this Court refrains from from expressing any conclusive opinion on the same at this stage. opinion (iv) Ordinarily, Ordinarily, if the petitioner had been part of an organized criminal syndicate, as is being criminal suggested, he would have similarly concealed his identity, as similarly as did the other individuals involved in the transaction. However, involved However, the petitioner’s open disclosure of his own identity and disclosure and his consistent cooperation with the authorities indicates, prima with prima facie, a measure of bona fides on his part, which cannot be fides ignored for the purposes of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM considering anticipatory bail. considering 12 (v) As regards the contention of the respondents respondents that the petitioner failed to honour the undertaking to failed make repayment of the loan amount as allegedly offered at the amount the time of the order dated 29.09.2022, it suffices to note that 29.09.2022, that the parties are already engaged in proceedings before engaged the competent court/forum concerning concerning the said Hence, issue. Hence, it would be neither appropriate nor prudent for this appropriate Court to venture into any observation on that aspect at this observation stage, lest it prejudices the rights or defences of the parties before rights before the concerned forum. 13. Taking into consideration all the circumstances Taking circumstances in totality, I find that the present petition merits favourable consideration, consideration, hence, the interim order dated 23.09.2022 23.09.2022 is confirmed. 14. Before parting with the present order, Before order, it is necessary to observe that, insofar as the issue relating to the lien created created against the property or account is concerned, concerned, civil proceedings have already already been instituted by the respondent-complainant. complainant. In the event that the the complainant succeeds in establishing the allegation of fraud in those proceedings, proceedings, he shall be entitled, in law, to all consequential reliefs and remedies remedies permissible under the relevant statutory statutory framework. Furthermore, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent-Bank has instituted instituted proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, Act, 1993. The adjudication and and outcome of the said proceedings shall, shall, therefore, govern and determine determine the inter se rights, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 101 CRM-M-38768-2022(O&M) CRM 13 liabilities, and obligations obligations of the contesting parties parties in accordance with law. 15. Since the petitioner has joined Since the investigation and his custodial interrogation interrogation is not required, the present present petition is allowed and the interim order dated absolute. dated 23.09.2022 is made absolute. 16. Nothing said or recorded hereinabove Nothing hereinabove should be deemed or construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the same has to be decided on its own own merits and based on evidence evidence adduced during trial. 17. However, if required, the petitioner(s) However, petitioner(s) shall continue to join investigation as and when required to do so and and shall abide by the terms and conditions, as laid laid down under Section 482 (2) BNSS. BNSS. 04.11.2025 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned speaking/reasoned reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document