Dismissed

Usha Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2025BAIL APPLN./11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC 420/120B for cheating and misuse of bank accounts, the petitioner pleaded impersonation. The court noted investigation revealed irregular transactions and incriminating conduct, denying anticipatory bail to ensure custodial interrogation. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed at this stage; petitioner required for custodial interrogation.

Usha Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 11/2025

¶4

USHA SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vijay Tangri, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with WSI Komal, PS Connaught Place

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R % 16.04.2025

¶10

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-Usha Singh in case FIR No. 184/2024 under Section 420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner herself is a whistle blower, who at her own made a complaint dated 10.07.2024 at P.S. Parliament Street regarding unauthorized transactions in the bank account opened in her name without her knowledge. It has been submitted that the son of the petitioner is working for a bank where her KYC documents were misused to issue corporate loans to dummy companies and without any evidence showing petitioner’s complicity in the crime, she has been named as an accused. It is submitted that the bank account does not have her biometric verification yet she is being harassed and treated like a criminal. It is further submitted that petitioner never

¶12

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 01/07/2025 at 00:06:44

¶13

visited any branch nor signed any bank account opening application form. She has been impersonated with the complicity of bank officials who allowed her forged signatures to be used in the banking process. It has been further submitted that petitioner has joined investigation and furnished all information that she had with her. She has cooperated in the investigation of the case and is not required for any further investigation.

¶14

The application has been opposed by learned APP, assisted by the Investigating Officer, submitting that investigation of the case is at a very early stage. The cheated amount of Rs.95 lacs has been transferred to the bank account in the name of the applicant. The main accused Saurabh who is the son of the applicant is absconding. The applicant did not duly cooperate in the investigation of the case, and even did not furnish the whereabouts of her son. It is further submitted that cheated amount is yet to be recovered and the whole conspiracy is to be unearthed. He further submits that there are chances that more persons are involved in the commission of the offence, and therefore, in order to unearth the complete conspiracy and involvements of other persons, the applicant would be required for the purpose of custodial interrogation and therefore, she may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶15

In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no contact with her son and does not know about his whereabouts.

¶16

The FIR in this case has been registered on the complaint of Mr. Kumar Prashant, Assistant General Manager of SME Branch. As per the averments in the plaint, co-accused Saurabh who is the son of the applicant while working as Relationship Manager, Small Medium Enterprises (RMSME) at SBI, SME, Connaught Place Branch, proposed a sanction of

¶17

¶18

financial assistance of Rs.1.95 crores for M/s Usha Enterprises which is stated to be a proprietary concern of one Mr. Abhishek Gupta. On the basis of the said proposal, the said facility was sanctioned in the account of the proprietary concern on 14.05.2024. On 18.05.2024, co-accused Saurabh approved RTGS transactions of Rs.95 lacs from the credit limit sanctioned to M/s A.S.Enterprises and transferred the amount to the account of M/s Usha Enterprises.

¶19

The account of M/s Usha Enterprises maintained by IDFC Bank is in the name of the applicant. During enquiry, it was revealed that the transfer of Rs.95 lacs on the basis of RTGS voucher approved by co-accused Saurabh was without any legitimate business rationale. On further enquiry by the bank, it was found that several transactions of similar nature but amounting to several crores were found to have been originated on the basis of vouchers duly approved by Saurabh that landed up in the account of M/s Usha Enterprises.

¶20

The enquiry reveals that transactions of more than Rs.25 crores were made from the account of M/s Usha Enterprises from 14.09.2021 to 25.07.2024.

¶21

During investigation, it was found that the applicant Usha Singh was neither residing nor running any business in the name of M/s Usha Enterprises at the registered address at K-89, Gali No. 12, Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar.

¶22

Upon investigation, it has also been found that one Federal Bank Account in the name of co-accused Saurabh has total credits of more than Rs.11 crores and other Federal Bank Account in the name of Usha Sudershan Singh has total credit of more than Rs.7.7 crores. The

¶23

¶24

investigation has thus revealed that the applicant Usha Singh in close connivance with co-accused Saurabh and others had round tripped the amounts in different accounts in their names and son-in-law Suneel Pratap Singh and has cheated the bank to the tune of more than several crores.

¶25

Even though the applicant claims that she has no contact with her son Saurabh and account in the name of M/s Usha Enterprises has been opened without her knowledge and using her forged signatures and KYC details, the investigation has revealed that the applicant provided a cheque of Rs.50,000/- from her account at the time of opening the account of the firm in which Rs.95 lacs was received.

¶26

During interrogation by the police, the applicant states that she had given her signed cheques to her son thinking that his son might need money for buying something and does not know as to what he did with the said cheque. On one hand the applicant claims that she has no contact with her son, while on the other, she gave a signed cheque to her son.

¶27

The cheating is to the tune of Rs.1.95 crores. The matter requires thorough investigation to unearth the conspiracy for which, the applicant may be required for custodial interrogation. Hence, considering the totality of facts and circumstances as also the nature and gravity of allegations, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant at this stage. The application is therefore dismissed.

¶28

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶29

APRIL 16, 2025/ib

¶30

Usha Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sahitya Singh Srivastav & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rupak Chatterjee @ Aryan Ved Chatterjee @ Rehan Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sanjay Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Anil Aggarwal Vs Chand Seth

Smt. Asha Gupta and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi