Amrish Kumar Oberoi v. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. It has been alleged that the complainant, along with his associates, intended to purchase commercial purposes, whereupon one Vijay Singh Parmar introduced him to a parcel of land comprised in Khasra No. 00025 for the Fasli years 1421 to 1426 and Khasra No. 285 (kha), admeasuring 1570 square meters, purportedly owned by the present applicant and his sons. It is further averred that the applicant and his sons gave a copy of land record (fard) of the concerned property, which does not contain the endorsement that the property was mortgaged with the bank 1 and, on this believe, a sale deed was executed on 15.03.2018, which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun, on 11.06.2018. The total sale consideration was allegedly paid between 22.09.2017 and 03.03.2018. Subsequently, when the complainant applied for mutation on the basis of the above sale deed, it came to his knowledge that the property in question was already mortgaged with Union Bank of India. Thereafter, he made a request that stringent action, in accordance with law, be initiated against the applicant and his sons. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and his sons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B I.P.C. on 28.11.2024 at Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is submitted that the applicant and his sons were engaged in the business of authorized distributorship of various Car companies, for which substantial financial assistance was availed from the Union Bank of India, by creating a charge and hypothecating several immovable properties. However, owing to severe financial losses in the business, the applicant was unable to discharge the said liability. Consequently, applicant approached the Bank with a proposal for a “One Time Settlement” (OTS), which was duly accepted by the Bank on 15.09.2017 for a total sum of ₹30,50,00,000/-, subject to an initial deposit of ₹50,00,000/-. It is further submitted that, in pursuance thereof, the applicant deposited a cumulative sum of ₹3,63,00,000/- and requested the Bank to release the property situated at Kuanwala. However, despite such deposit, the Bank insisted upon an additional payment of ₹50,00,000/- for the completion of the OTS and, upon non-compliance, the Bank ultimately cancelled the 2 settlement. He submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. pertain to a registered sale deed and it is a settled principle of law that once a document is duly registered, a presumption of its genuineness attaches thereto unless annulled by a competent Civil Court; that the sale deed in question was executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar on

11.06.2018, however, the complainant and his associates neither sought cancellation of the sale deed nor availed any civil remedy; that the complainant subsequently purchased the said property at a sale consideration of ₹2,75,00,000/- on

15.06.2020 from Udit Goenka (auction sale purchaser). On this basis, it is argued that complainant had full knowledge that the property was mortgaged with the bank and, therefore, he agreed to purchase the property from the applicant and his sons on 15.03.2018 at a throwaway price of ₹1,26,50,000/-; that bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that even if any offence is made out against the applicant, at the most, it would be offence under Section 420 I.P.C., for which maximum punishment is upto 7 years, therefore, applicant’s case is covered under Category A, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another”, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773; that due to severe business losses, applicant and his sons have been constrained to face multiple proceedings, though none disclose any element of criminality beyond financial adversity; that the applicant have not committed any forgery in Khatauni documents which, in any case, are accessible online to the public at large; that the applicant is a Senior Citizen of 74 years, suffering from cardiac disease, while his son Pranav Oberoi is already in judicial custody and, the allegations as alleged appears to be of civil nature and, keeping in view the applicant’s advanced age and health condition, it is submitted that he deserves to be enlarged on 3 bail; that since charge sheet has already been filed in the matter, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence is minimal. He submits that applicant is a law abiding citizen and in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail surety as per the satisfaction of this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application and contended that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and supported by credible material collected during investigation. It is submitted that the evidentiary record prima facie establishes the active involvement and culpability of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. He submits that the nature and gravity of the accusations, coupled with the available documentary evidence, render the applicant undeserving of indulgence by way of bail at this stage, as enlargement on bail may prejudice the ongoing investigation.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that applicant and the co-accused are habitual offenders and the applicant has criminal history of almost 19 cases of similar nature of cheating, fraud, financial frauds etc.; that the applicant, in concert with his two sons, fraudulently manipulated and forged the Khatauni records and, thereafter, supplied the forged Khatauni to the informant and the co-purchasers, thereby dishonestly inducing them to purchase the property in question; that by tampering with the revenue entries and removing the endorsement relating to the subsisting loan recorded therein, the applicant, along with the co-accused, proceeded to execute a sale deed dated 15.03.2018 in favour of the complainant and his associates, which was subsequently 4 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar IV, Dehradun; that in the sale deed, it is categorically mentioned that the property is free from all encumbrances, which is a false statement and, thus, offence under Section 476 I.P.C. is also made out against the applicant; that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, there exists a very real and substantial possibility of the applicant absconding from justice.

7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Amrish Kumar Oberoi, be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall cooperate with Investigating Agency and he will make himself available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating agency, as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case especially the complainant. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court. (iv) Applicant shall surrender his Passport before the trial Court, if he has one. In case, he does not possess Passport, then he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

24.09.2025 (Alok Mahra, J.) Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e 3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C51 09CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL 5