LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-63

ANKUR AGGARWAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Decided On July 12, 2022
Ankur Aggarwal Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("CrPC") on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim bail in FIR No. RC-BDI/2008/E/0008, dtd. 14/11/2008, registered under Sec. 120-B read with Ss. 420/467/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof by the CBI at P.S. CBI/BS&FC/DL.

(2.) The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the offences relate to the year 2008, the petitioner came to be arrested in the present case only on 10/6/2021. It is also urged that since charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for any investigation in judicial custody.

(3.) The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, along with his mother, Veena Aggarwal, is one of the partners in M/s Krishna Chains and Jewellery Co. The petitioner and his mother have been accused of having mortgaged Shops No. 12-14, Plot No. 1171, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi by using forged and bogus documents. The aforementioned shops allegedly were also being used as mortgage for obtaining credit facilities to the tune of Rs.1.61 crores from the State Bank of Patiala, Darya Ganj Branch in 2006. It is submitted that since Veena Aggarwal, who owned the aforesaid properties, has already been released on regular bail by the Special Court vide order dtd. 7/12/2021, the petitioner may be enlarged on interim bail at the least, considering that he had a lesser role to play in comparison to her. The aforementioned properties, besides properties of the family members of the petitioner, have already been auctioned, and a sum of Rs.5.08 crores has been recovered by the banks. It is further stated that the petitioner came to India on 4/7/2018 on voluntary departure from Canada, thereafter he was arrested by the respondent from his brother's office on 1/4/2021 in another case with regard to the loan taken from Punjab National Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested by the respondent in the present case.