High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4365 of 2022 Applicant :- Sachin Dutta Opposite Party :- C.B.I. / E.O.I. New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Anubhav Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sachin Dutta seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Special Case No. 10 of 2020 in R.C. No. 2192017E0017, under Section 120- B IPC read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Police Station Economic Offences, C.B.I./Economic Offences-I, New Delhi, District Ghaziabad. registered at The allegations in the First Information Report is that M/s Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. constructed a multi- storied residential flats in the name of Balaji Foster Heights in Ghaziabad. The project was approved by Punjab National Bank, Ghaziabad for sanction of house loan. The applicant is the Director of the construction company who in conspiracy and connivance with the borrowers/allottees cheated the bank fraudulently by taking house loans in the names of borrowers/allottees on the basis of forged and fictitious documents as such caused loss to the bank. It is further alleged that he had misappropriated huge amount of money in conspiracy with other accused persons by issuing multiple allotment letters for a single flat to different persons which enabled them to obtain the housing loan in their names. The bank officials agreed to extend the finance facility to individuals who wanted to purchase flats in the said project after evaluating of their financial status and other credentials. The First Information Report was thus lodged on 02.08.2017 by Major Sanjay Jain, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad against M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sachin Dutta the Director (the present applicant), Smt. Suruchi Dutta and unknown officials of Punjab National Bank and other unknown persons. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as many as 32 FIRs have been lodged by the bank against the applicant and unknown officials of the bank further against unknown persons. After lodging of the First Information Report the investigation of the said cases was handed over to the CBI who concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet No. 15 of 2020 dated 3.01.2020 against Harpreet Singh Saigal, Harjeet Singh Saigal, Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Sachin Dutta the applicant. Copy of charge sheet has been placed before the Court which is annexure 10 to the affidavit. It is argued that since the charge sheet has been filed there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 17.03.2020. It is further argued that in identical matters, the applicant has been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court by various orders. The said orders are annexed as annexure 2 to the affidavit in support of bail application which are as follows:- i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35678 of 2018 (Sachin Dutta @ Sachidanand Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 20.09.2018. ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 350 of 2020 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 07.09.2020. iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 344 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI) bail granted vide order dated 25.03.2021. iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29881 of 2020 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 10.11.2020. v) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39026 of 2020 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 17.11.2020. vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17693 of 2019 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) bail granted vide order dated 12.08.2021. vii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39893 of 2020 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 03.09.2021. viii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36634 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 10.11.2021. ix) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36636 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P.) bail granted vide order dated 17.01.2022. x) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43895 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences-I) bail granted vide order dated 15.02.2022. xi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43791 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences) bail granted vide order dated 15.02.2022. xii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37510 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences-I) bail granted vide order dated 15.02.2022. xiii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35414 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences-I) bail granted vide order dated 15.02.2022. xiv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34843 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI) bail granted vide order dated 15.02.2022. xv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37912 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences-I) bail granted vide order dated 21.02.2022. xvi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37549 of 2021 (Sachin Dutta Vs. CBI Economic Offences-I) bail granted vide order dated 21.02.2022. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. He is mastermind of the whole matter. The CBI lodged a First Information Report in which different charge sheets are being submitted for the different incident being the different allotment letters and facilities of loan availed from the bank. The applicant is involved in the present matter. Learned counsel for the CBI, however, could not dispute the fact that in almost identical/same allegations the applicant has been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on which cognizance has been taken and the trial has started. In other cases which are identical to the present case and are having similar allegations, the applicant has been granted bail by this Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant Sachin Dutta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 12.12.2022 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.12.21 09:49:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad