Mukesh Kumar vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 374/2023, registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC. The FIR concerns obtaining bank loans by furnishing forged documents. One loan was obtained from Bank of India by Madhu, using forged documents related to a property owned by the complainant. A significant portion of this loan amount allegedly transferred to the petitioner's account. Another transaction involved Chetna Arora posing as Sneh Prabha, acting as a guarantor for an equitable mortgage with Bank of Baroda, using forged documents related to the same property. The prosecution alleges the petitioner is the mastermind behind creating these forged documents and facilitating the fraudulent transactions. The petitioner has been in custody since September 25, 2023, and was previously released on interim bail, which he did not misuse. All co-accused have been released on regular bail.
Held
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Mukesh Kumar. The decision was based on several factors: the period of custody undergone by the applicant (since September 25, 2023), the fact that all co-accused have already been released on regular bail, and the ongoing status of further investigation. The Court also took into consideration that the petitioner had previously been released on interim bail and had not misused that concession. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount. Additionally, specific conditions were imposed, including not leaving the National Capital Region (NCR) without prior court permission, providing his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and remaining available, promptly informing the Investigating Officer and Court of any change in address or contact details, not contacting the complainant or prosecution witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and regularly appearing before the concerned Court during the trial. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were only for the purpose of disposing of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 374/2023, considering the period of custody, the release of co-accused, and the pendency of further investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner has been in custody since September 25, 2023, and was released on interim bail from May 8, 2024, to July 16, 2024, without misusing the concession. All co-accused have already been released on regular bail, and the case is still pending further investigation. The petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in the loans in question. Respondent's (State of NCT of Delhi) arguments: The petitioner is the mastermind behind creating forged documents and facilitating the fraudulent loans. Madhu obtained a home loan of Rs. 52,00,000/- from Bank of India using forged documents related to the complainant's property, with Rs. 50,60,000/- allegedly transferred to the petitioner's account. Chetna Arora, posing as Sneh Prabha, used forged documents as a guarantor for an equitable mortgage with Bank of Baroda. The petitioner has four other similar prior involvements. The GST registration obtained by Madhu used the petitioner's email ID, and the petitioner accompanied Madhu during the loan application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
By way of present bail application, the applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 374/2023 registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC at P.S. Ghazipur, Delhi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 25.09.2023 and was released on interim bail w.e.f. 08.05.2024 to 16.07.2024, which concession has not been misused by him. On merits, it is stated that as per the prosecution case, the FIR pertains to obtaining of bank loan by one Madhu and equitable mortgage by one Chetna Arora posing as Sneh Prabha from the Bank of India and Bank of Baroda respectively. He submits that the applicant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in the said loans. It is further stated that all the co-accused This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:23
have already been released on regular bail and that the case is still pending at the stage of further investigation.
Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the bail application. It is stated that Madhu obtained a home loan of Rs.52,00,000/- from Bank of India by furnishing forged chain of documents with respect to the property bearing Flat No. 51, Pocket-A, 1st Floor, New MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Dehi-110096 owned by the complainant. It is stated that Sneh Prabha, who was the initial allottee, had sold the subject property to the complainant, who had retained the ownership and possession with him. However, by manufacturing a forged chain of documents, Madhu obtained the said loan out of which Rs.50,60,000/- has travelled to the account of the present applicant. By using another forged chain of documents, Chetna Arora posing as Sneh Prabha, appeared as a guarantor before Bank of Baroda with respect to Equitable mortgage of Rs.50,000/- by one M/s V.C. Food (Partnership firm) in which Chetna Arora@Sneha Prabha was one of the partners. It is stated that the role of the present applicant is of being the mastermind, having created the forged chain of documents and using Madhu and Sneh Prabha in the process. It is stated that the applicant has four other similar prior involvements. It is also stated that the Bank has initiated proceedings under DRT, however, the possession of the property is still with the complainant. It is also stated that the Bank of Baroda has filed a separate complaint with respect to the equitable mortgage given to M/s V.C. Food (Partnership firm) in which Chetna Arora@Sneha Prabha has used the documents of the subject property while appearing as a guarantor. It is also stated that the GST registration sought by Madhu had the email ID of the present applicant This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:23
who had also accompanied the co-accused at the time of seeking the home loan.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is enlarged on bail in all the aforesaid four cases.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties as well as learned APP for the State and have also gone through the material placed on record. During the course of the submissions, it is informed that the FSL Report is still awaited and a supplementary challan is yet to be filed and the charges are also remaining to be framed.
Considering the period of custody undergone as well as the fact that the all the co-accused have already been released on regular bail and further investigation is still pending and also keeping in view the fact that he was previously released on interim bail, which concession he has not misused, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/ concerned Court/Duty J.M./Link J.M. and subject to the following further conditions:- i) The applicant shall not leave the NCR without prior permission of the concerned Court. ii) The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer on which he will remain available during the pendency of the trial. iii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:23
iv) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. v) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial.
The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
Copy of the order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case as the same has been expressed only for the purpose of the disposal of the present bail application. DASTI.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 6, 2024 na
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:23
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.