Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. At the outset, it is submitted that this Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner is a
complete abuse of process of the law. No question of law, much less any substantial
question of law, arises for consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the present Petition.
It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner vide the present SLP has approached
this Honble Court challenging the dismissal of his S.B. Crl. Misc. third Bail
Application No.1148 of 2017. The Honble High Court after correct appreciation of
all the facts and the stage of the evidence along with the gravity of the offence
section 439 CrPC. He has been charged u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B
of IPC in the case. The petitioner is in custody since 20 july 2016 and has
been granted bail by delhi high court but in this case due to the seriousness
and also the bail petition of the co-accused Prabhu dayal has been dismissed.
Thus there remains no ground of bail for the petitioner. Judgment relied by the
counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case in view of the facts and
It is submitted that the Honble High Court vide its order while correctly applying the
well settled principles of law for the grant of bail has rightly rejected the same, as
there has been no substantial change in circumstance since the rejection of the
previous bail application of the accused Petitioner, hence the present Special Leave
2. It is submitted that it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of bail the
following factors have to be considered, (i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature
and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)
means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and
submitted that in the present factual matrix, taking into account not only the gravity of
the offence committed but the fact that prima facie there is very strong and cogent
evidence to establish that the accused Petitioner did in fact commit the offence as
levied on him.
3. It is submitted that the Petitioner in connivance with other accused persons through a
trust and criminal conspiracy to raise loans from different financial and non financial
institutions to gain wrongful profit and forged the documents of the property no. D-3-
16, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051 for the same purpose. They have created one
or more false documents of one property and taken loan from several banks, this
clearly shows the malafide intention of the petitioner, further establishing the fact that
accused persons are habitual offenders. The accused did the same with the AU
Financers by approaching them and requesting a loan, further wanting to transfer the
loan account from the Karur Vysya Bank already run on the same property situated in
D-3-16, Krishna nagar, New Delhi- 110051 to AU Finance. And, for this transfer the
AU Financers were supposed to pay the balance amount to Karur Vysya Bank.
Consequently, the complainant company paid Rs. 52,95,338 and the petitioners loan
account was transferred. Thus AU Finance sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.
similar complaint filed by Sh. Satbir Singh for cheating involving Rs. 45 lacs, a case
registered with FIR no 92/2016, AU Finance came to know that the petitioner was not
the true owner of the property which he mortgaged and that the said property was an
instrument of an act put forth by the accused, before several such banks.
4. It may further be brought to the notice of this Honble Court that the accused wrongly
seeks bail on the ground that the documents presented are not forged. It is, in fact true
that the AU Finance had conducted enquiry and only after getting satisfied they
sanctioned the loan to the petitioner and collected the documents from Karur Vysya
Bank. However, the facts of the case happen to include the aforementioned bank
itself, in the names of the accused parties, for putting up a show with those forged
documents and deceiving the AU Finance, among other such banks. The accused no
5, with the help of its employees, as no outside has the authority to use its official
paper/letterhead, created one or more false documents of the same property, taking it
to different banks, and maliciously requesting for loan, with a view to dupe them,
committing the offence of fraud, forgery and cheating with the complainant company.
They also created false NOC, producing the same before the complainant, giving false
5. It is mentioned that the petitioner, on page no 6 of the Special Leave Petition has
wrongly quoted Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V Rajesh Ranjan, which to state correctly
enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a
balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of
them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant
bail to an respondent or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the
Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as
the interest of the society. Moreover, it is also relevant to state that in the present
case the trial is yet not complete and is at the stage where the evidence of the
accused/ petitioner is granted bail, there is every likelihood of his trying to distort
the evidences. Hence, since the accused is undergoing trial, he ought not to be
6. That no new facts or grounds have been pleaded before this Honble Court which is