Allowed

Sudesh Kumar Sehgal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC20 Aug 2018BAIL APPLN./910/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application involving allegations of forging signatures on loan documents after the death of a partner, the court held that custodial interrogation was initially required but dispensed with due to the petitioner's severe illness and advanced age. The interim bail orders were continued.

What did the court decide?

Custodial interrogation dispensed with in view of petitioner's age and illness; petitioner to cooperate via police visits; interim bail orders continued.

Sudesh Kumar Sehgal Vs State (Govt of NCT of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Signing Date:07.10.2024 17:02:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶3

Mr. Rahul Shaima, Advs.

¶4

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR Respondent Through:Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for Statewith SI Suneel Siddhu, P.S. Parliament Street. Mr. S.K. Sharma withMr. PrayasAneja,Advs. forR-2.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICENAJMIWAZIRI ORDER 0/„ 20.08.2018

¶6

The petitioner'sprayer for grant of interim bail was declinedby the

¶7

Trial Court, interalia, for the followingreasons;-

¶8

In the present case, it is admittedfact that Late Smt. Krishna Kumari had died on 11.01.2008.It is also admitted fact that after the death of Smt. Krishna Kumari, original guaranteeagreementdated08.05.2008was dulysignedby Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal, originalguarantee^agreementdated 04.12.2009 signed by Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal, original letter of confirmationof mortgage creation/extensiondated 08.05.2008 and 27.07.2009 duly signed by Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal, original acknowledgement of debt cmd confirmationofsecuritydated 24.04.2008duly si^ed ^ Krishna Kumari Sehgal were submitted with the Stmdard • CharteredBank. Thus, as Ms. KrishnaKumari Sehgalhad H* for heavenly abode on 11.01.2008somebody hadforged the signatures of Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal on these documents."

¶9

Mr. S. K. Sharma, the learnedcounsel for the petitionersubmits that the petitionerin Bail Appln. 910/2018 viz. Sudesh Kumar Sehgal, enjoys this Court'sprotectionfrom anest, for the past year; that the petitionerhas cooperatedwith the InvestigatingOfficer on every occasion and he has

¶10

made himself available before him even on telephone calls; that nothing remains to be recovered from him and he is otherwise ready and willing to continue to join investigation as and when so called; that the documents furnished to the bank for continuation of the loan in May, 2008 and December, 2009 were signed by the partners individually and the petitioner does not know as to who had signed for and on behalf of Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal.

¶11

Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, the learned counsel for the complainant states that although the bankers have been repaid the loan amounts and the suit properties in which he claims interest have been secured and are indeed is free from all encumbrances, nevertheless, the attempt by the petitioner to defraud the banker in obtaining and/or continuing to obtain moniesborrowed from the bank by mortgaging the suit property, needs to be answered. He refers to the documents signed by the accused persons, for continuance of the Mortgage Deed in which Ms. KjrishnaKumari Sehgal is shown to be alive on 24.04.2005, 08.05.2008 as well as on 04.12.2009; when admittedly, she had already passed away on the 11.01.2008. In particular,he refers to a documentdated 24.12.2009(at pages 91-97 in Crl. M.C 3758/2018) purportedly signed by Ms. Krishna Kumari Sehgal and given to the bank, as "letter of confirmation of mortgage creation/extension".Similarly,signatureofthe deceasedis also appendedto a documentwhich has been conjointlysigned by allthe five partnersof M/s. Ram Lai Kundan Lai Jewellers, of which the petitioner was and is a partner. The said documentis at page 97 in Crl. M.C.3758/2018.

¶12

Mr. Amit Gupta, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail on the ground that the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for

¶13

•is

¶14

the petitioner clearly show that there is confusionas to who had presented the Guarantee Agreement signed on 08.05.2008 (page 97) as, aforementioned. It shows seven signatures. Since there is no clarity as to who signed on behalf of Ms. Ki'ishna Kumari Sehgal, who had already passed away about four months earlier on 11.01.2008, there are good and compelling reasons for custodial inten'ogation.

¶15

Keeping the aforesaid facts in consideration and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti NivruttiNavale v. State^f Maharashtra and Another (2012) 9 SCC 235 which held that:-

¶16

""12 in order to bring out all the material information and documents custodial interrogation is required, more particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged to have beenforged andfabricated. In the said documents and other materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the allegation against him that he has madefalse representation before thepublic authority on the basis of those documents for obtaining necessary permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to secure possession of those documents, custodial interrogation is necessary....

¶17

And further keeping in view the judgment in State v. Anil Sharma, (1997)7 SCC 187, which held;

¶18

"6. We findforce in the submissionof the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitativelymore elicitation-orientedthan questioninga suspectwho is well ensconcedwith afavourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effectiveinterrogationofa suspectedperson is of tremendous advantage in disinterringmany useful informationsand also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogationwould elude if the suspectedperson knows that he is well protectedand insulatedby a pre-arrest bail order

¶19

during the time he is interrogated.Very often interrogationin such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogationisfraught with the danger of the person being subjectedto third-degreemethods need not be countenanced,for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsiblepolice officerswould conductthemselvesin a responsiblemanner and that those entrustedwith the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

¶20

This Court is of the view that a case for custodial interrogation is made out.

¶21

Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner Sudesh Kumar Sehgal is aged about 80 years. He is severelyill and is suffering from blood cancer and he would be in extremehardshipif he is taken into custody. In view of the above, custodial interrogation of petitioner Sudesh Kumar Sehgal will not be insisted upon since he cannot go anywhere and would stay in bed. Nevertheless, he shall continue to cooperate with the police when they visit him for answer to their queries. BAIL APPLN. 910/2018 stands disposed off accordingly.

¶22

BAIL APPLN. 904/2018 BAIL APPLN. 927/2018 CRL.M.C. 3758/2018

¶23

Arguments have been heard. At the time of dictation of order Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would like to refer to certain documents.

¶24

At his request, renotify on 29.08.2018.

¶25

Interim orders to continue.

¶26

NAMi WAZIRI,J

¶27

AUGUST 20, 2018/acm

Sudesh Kumar Sehgal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumar Sehgal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Singh Vs State

Mohd. Shakil @ Bhola Vs State

Jagbir Singh Dahiya Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Ashok Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Anjana Khaneja Vs State Bank of Patiala

Amit Fatnani & Ors. Vs Satte of NCT of Delhi & Anr.