[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Sudhir Sharma vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024
SUDHIR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shambhu Datt Sharma and Mr.
R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with Ms.
Babita Ahlawat, Advocate.
SI Mukesh Chauhan, SI, P.S. EOW.
Ms. Tanu Singhal, Mr. Deepak
Kumar, Mr. Deepak and Mr.
Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.04.2025
1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in FIR No. 10/2010 under Sections 406,
420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 registered at P.S. Economic
Offences Wing, Delhi. Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
and the Trial Court has since framed charges against the Applicant under
Sections 409, 467, 471 and 174-A, read with 120-B of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1 The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Mr. Edwin I. Logo,
who alleged that he came across an advertisement in the Times of India
inviting investments in SR Cabs Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant stated that upon1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 1 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
contacting one Ms. Shilpi Gambhir, he was persuaded to invest in the
company, which claimed to lease vehicles to multinational companies and
BPOs. Pursuant to the scheme offered, the Complainant invested ₹8.82
Lakhs in SR Cabs on 27th March, 2009, through cheques for seven Tata
Indica vehicles. He was promised a monthly return of ₹7,600 per vehicle for
five years, along with a resale value of ₹60,000 at the end of the term.
2.2 On 2nd April, 2009, the complainant received documents and seven
Post-Dated Cheques4. Only two cheques were honoured; the rest were
returned unpaid. On seeking clarification, the Complainant was assured by
the Directors of SR Cabs, including the Applicant herein, that the issue was
temporary. However, upon discovering that other investors had faced similar
defaults, and learning that the company had closed its office, and its
directors had become untraceable, he lodged a complaint, leading to
registration of the FIR.
2.3 The investigation revealed that numerous investors had been similarly
defrauded. Sixteen victims were examined, and they produced agreements,
payment receipts, bank statements, PDCs, and return memos. It was found
that a total of ₹67,11,700/- had been invested by these victims in SR Cabs.
2.4 As per the ROC records, SR Cabs was incorporated on 29th February,
2008, but its office was shut down by July 2009. The company had failed to
file its balance sheets and annual returns, suggesting it had no legitimate
business operations and was merely a vehicle to solicit funds under false
pretences. Furthermore, since the company was taking Non-Banking
3
“IPC”
4
“PDCs”
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 2 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
Financial Investments5 from the public, the Reserve Bank of India was
approached to verify whether SR Cabs was registered as a Non-Banking
Financial Company6. The RBI confirmed that the company held no such
registration or authorisation.
2.5 The Applicant was one of two directors of SR Cabs, holding 500
equity shares. Two bank accounts, one each with Axis Bank and ICICI
Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, were found linked to the company. Both the
Applicant and co-director Ravi Kumar were the authorised signatories to
these accounts, as confirmed by KYC records obtained from the banks.
2.6 Analysis of the bank statements revealed a pattern: (A) investor funds
were collected through cheques and cash, (B) initial returns were paid to
investors to inspire confidence, and (C) the funds were later siphoned off to
the directors’ personal accounts or withdrawn in cash. Pertinently, no
banking transactions reflected any commercial activity relating to vehicle
leasing.
2.7 Efforts were made to trace the accused persons (directors of SR Cabs
– including the Applicant), however, they deliberately avoided the process
of law. The copy of their driving licences obtained from the banks and
submitted for verification were found to be forged, as confirmed by the
Transport Department, Mayur Vihar.
2.8 The MLO Taxi Unit, Burari, was asked to verify if any vehicles were
registered under the company’s name. It responded that no such vehicles
were registered.
2.9 Records from the Income Tax Department showed that the accused
5
“NBFI”
6
“NBFC”
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 3 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
had not filed any income tax returns. Efforts to trace them through PAN and
NSDL records also proved futile.
2.10 In view of the foregoing findings, Sections 464 and 467 of the IPC
were added during the course of investigation. Additionally, as the forged
documents were used to open bank accounts in the name of SR Cabs and
submitted before various government authorities, Section 471 IPC was also
invoked against both directors of the company, including the Applicant.
2.11 Initially, Ms. Shilpi Gambhir was also arrayed as an accused.
However, as the investigation did not reveal any suspicious transactions
involving her personal accounts, she was listed as a suspect in Column 12 of
the chargesheet.
2.12 Despite efforts, the Applicant and co-accused Ravi Kumar evaded
investigation. Raids were conducted at three known addresses, but the
Applicant could not be traced. Eventually, on 17 th October, 2016, both were
declared Proclaimed Offenders by the Trial Court.
2.13 The Applicant was apprehended on 29 th March, 2023, after fresh
information was received. During police custody, he admitted that he and
Ravi Kumar incorporated SR Cabs on 19th February, 2008, operated from
Paschim Vihar, and issued advertisements calling for public investments. He
confirmed that the funds were collected from investors and deposited in
company accounts, of which both he and Ravi were signatories. He also
confirmed that they later transferred the money to their personal accounts
and discontinued operations by mid-2009 after switching off their phones
and closing the office.
2.14 The Applicant further admitted that the company was neither
registered with RBI as an NBFC nor filed statutory returns with the ROC.
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 4 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
He confessed that investors were defrauded through schemes designed to
extract money, and that the company committed criminal breach of trust by
diverting the funds.
2.15 Handwriting and signature specimens were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory7, Rohini, but the opinion returned inconclusive. No
additional signature samples could be located, and the FSL report was filed
before the Trial Court through a supplementary chargesheet.
2.16 After arrest, the Applicant submitted a disability certificate bearing
an address that had earlier been declared untraceable. The Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of the owner of the said property, Mr. Harish
Kumar, who confirmed that the Applicant had vacated the premises in 2006
and that multiple individuals had visited the property later, in connection
with money-related grievances. Police officials also visited on several
occasions, but the Applicant was never found at the said address.
2.17 Based on the evidence collected, the Trial Court has framed charges
against the Applicant under Sections 409, 467, 471, 120-B, and 174-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Counsel for Applicant, urges the following grounds for seeking bail:
3.1 The Applicant, a law-abiding citizen with clean antecedents, resident
of Delhi for more than 30 years, has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The investigation is complete; both the chargesheet and supplementary
chargesheet have been filed. No recovery has been effected from the
Applicant.
3.2 The Applicant is not the same Sudhir Sharma who was named as a
director of SR Cabs and mentioned in the FIR. The Applicant denies anyBAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 5 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
involvement with the affairs of SR Cabs or the alleged fraudulent
transactions. The prosecution has failed to produce cogent evidence to
establish any connection between the Applicant and the offences in question.
In particular, no money trail has been drawn linking the Applicant to the
funds allegedly collected from investors.
3.3 The original complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered,
does not contain any direct allegation against the Applicant. The
Complainant named only Ms. Shilpi Gambhir and her husband, Mr. Sandeep
Gambhir. The Complainant specifically stated that he had interacted solely
with Ms. Shilpi and later received a call from a person who identified
himself as Sudhir Sharma and had a distinctively gruff voice. The
Complainant identified, Sandeep’s voice as matching that of the caller who
had posed as Sudhir Sharma. He further stated that the real photo of Sudhir
Sharma suggests a middle age man and not an elderly person as the voice on
call indicated, however, he further submitted that although Sandeep is a
young person, he has a characteristic old throaty voice. The police also
seized Sandeep’s phone, which allegedly contained incriminating material
including investor call logs and lists. The Complainant specifically alleged
that it was Sandeep who impersonated the director and carried out the
fraudulent operation along with Shilpi.
3.4 The Applicant’s identity has been misused by Shilpi Gambhir and
Sandeep Gambhir, with whom he had no association. There is no material
on record to suggest that the Applicant ever met any investor, solicited
funds, or participated in the alleged scheme. Yet, the police failed to pursue
the real culprits and instead proceeded to arrest the Applicant without
7
“FSL”
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 6 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:17
sufficient basis.
3.5 Reference is made to the statement of Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, landlord
of the premises where SR Cabs allegedly operated. In his statement recorded
under Section 161 CrPC, Mr. Dahiya stated that while he had rented the
premises to someone named Sudhir Sharma, the individual shown to him in
the photograph (i.e. the present Applicant) was not the same person. He also
noted that the person to whom he had rented the premises did not appear to
be physically handicapped.
3.6 The documents provided by the victims as well as the documents
seized by IO of the case – i.e. the opening form of the bank accounts of SR
Cabs, ROC documents, etc, do not bear the signatures/hand writing of the
Applicant. In the FSL report, which has come back as conclusive, the
Forensic Experts specifically stated that the sets of signatures provided by
the prosecution do not match. Moreover, the photograph on the fake Driving
License issued in the name of Sudhir Sharma, which the prosecution seeks
to rely upon, does not resemble the Applicant. The signature on the licence
also does not match the Applicant’s admitted signature.
3.7 Thus, there is no credible evidence to implicate the Applicant. The
entire case, it is urged, stems from a case of mistaken identity, the
Applicant’s name and credentials having allegedly been misused by Shilpi
and Sandeep to perpetrate fraud upon unsuspecting investors.
3.8 The Applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest on 29 th
March, 2023. He is a senior citizen and handicapped person with 84.8%
disability. Considering his advanced age and medical condition, there is no
apprehension of flight risk or of his tampering with evidence or influencing
any witness.
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 7 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State opposes the
grant of bail, placing reliance on the facts narrated above and urging the
following grounds:
4.1 The investigation has revealed the Applicant’s active role in
fraudulently opening bank accounts in the name of SR Cabs using forged
documents and inducing members of the public to invest in a fictitious
vehicle leasing scheme. After collecting substantial funds from investors, the
Applicant, along with his associates, abruptly shut down operations and
absconded. All the complainants/victims in their statements under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. have stated that were allured to invested money in SR Cabs
and later came to know that the accused company and certain accused
persons had misappropriated all of their funds without any authorization and
fled, thereby committing criminal breach of trust and causing wrongful loss
to them. Therefore, although the accused company – SR Cabs is a separate
legal entity from its directors, the corporate veil can be lifted to reveal the
real culprits who have committed such offences. Being a Director of SR
Cabs, the Applicant was entrusted with the investments made by the
Complainants, which was later fraudulently misappropriated. Therefore, his
role in the commission of the offence is clear.
4.2 Moreover, the Applicant poses a serious flight risk and that his past
conduct demonstrates an attempt to evade the process of law. He remained
untraceable for over seven years and was apprehended only after having
been declared a Proclaimed Offender8 by the Trial Court in 2016. The trial is
presently at the stage of prosecution evidence, with witness statements being
recorded. In these circumstances, the State apprehends that if released onBAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 8 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
bail, the Applicant may tamper with evidence or attempt to influence
witnesses.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The principal
defence raised by the Applicant is that he is not the same Sudhir Sharma
who is named as a director of SR Cabs and that his identity was fraudulently
misused by unknown persons to lure investors and misappropriate funds. As
such, the key piece of evidence in the present case is the forensic analysis
report of the signatures on the purported documents specimens used in the
registration of the accused company, opening of the company’s bank
accounts, PDCs etc, as compared to the admitted signature specimens of the
Applicant.
6. In this regard, the prosecution has placed reliance on a forensic report
submitted along with the supplementary chargesheet in 2023. The report
notes that the admitted signatures of the Applicant differ from those on the
questioned documents. However, the report also mentions that since there is
a time gap of approximately 10-14 years between the execution of the
documents and the specimen signatures provided, the comparison is
unsuitable for a conclusive opinion. While the prosecution stated it would
obtain further admitted signatures of comparable age and format, no
additional samples have been secured, nor has any updated forensic opinion
been filed thereafter. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, this delay in
resolving a critical aspect of the investigation, particularly where the
Applicant consistently denies any involvement, pivots in favour of the
Applicant. The initial report, which does not support the prosecution’s
claim, cannot be disregarded lightly in such circumstances.
8
“PO”
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 9 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
7. As per the case of the prosecution, at the time of opening of the
alleged bank accounts of SR Cabs and at the time of submission of ROC
documents, the directors of the said company – allegedly including the
Applicant – had given fake identity proofs such as driving license and Pan
Card, which were later obtained by the police during investigation and were
subsequently filed along with the original chargesheet. Pertinently, these
identity proofs are fake and fabricated as the face of the person who appears
in the photograph affixed on these documents is not that of the Applicant.
There is thus a possibility that someone has misused his identity to develop
these fake documents and submit them to the authorities for registration of
the accused company and opening of its bank accounts. The Court has
perused the file, which contains the copy of the Applicant’s original Aadhar
card as well as the fake driving license and PAN card obtained by the police
from the relevant authorities. On a bare glance, it is evident that the
Applicant is not the person whose photographs are on the purported fake
identity proofs. Therefore, on a prima facie basis, there is merit in the
contention of the Applicant that his identity may have been stolen by
someone.
8. Furthermore, one of the key contentions of the prosecution is that
once investor funds were deposited in the bank accounts of SR Cabs, the
Applicant and the co-accused misappropriated the money by transferring it
to their personal accounts or withdrawing it in cash. However, the
investigation has not yielded any documentary trail conclusively
establishing such transfers by the Applicant. There is no transfer into his
bank account. On a specific query posed by the Court, the Investigating
Officer, who is present in Court, confirmed that no effort was made to trace
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 10 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
cash withdrawals to the Applicant, whether by examining CCTV footage of
ATM withdrawals or by obtaining withdrawal forms bearing signatures from
the relevant bank branches for forensic comparison.
9. In the above circumstances, at this stage, the Court prima facie finds
that there is no direct or credible evidence that links the Applicant to the
receipt or diversion of the funds in question. The forensic inconclusiveness,
the absence of a verified money trail, and the lack of signature corroboration
collectively weigh in favour of granting the benefit of doubt to the Applicant
at this stage.
10. It is also relevant to note that in the instant case, the FIR was
registered in the year 2010, and the investigation was completed only in
2024. Moreover, while the Applicant was arrested on 29th March, 2023,
charges were framed against him only on 29 th July, 2024, following the
submission of the supplementary chargesheet. Although the trial is
underway, it is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Out of over 34
witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 10 have been examined so far. The
likelihood of early conclusion of the trial appears remote.
11. It is trite law that the object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. The Supreme Court has consistently held pre-trial detention is
not to be used as a substitute for punishment; that primary aim sought to be
achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the
trial9. The Applicant herein is a person with disability, who has been issued
a permanent disability certificate dated 24th January, 2003 from LBS
Hospital. Subsequently, the Applicant’s disability has been assessed and
9
See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 11 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
confirmed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, and he has been found to
be disabled in relation to left upper limb and left lower limb. Moreover, he
has been in custody since March 2023, and he has spent approximately 2
years in custody as an undertrial. As regards the contention of the
prosecution that in case the Applicant is released on bail, he may abscond
considering that he was a declared PO for 7 years, in the opinion of the
Court, suitable bail conditions can be imposed on the Applicant to ensure his
presence during trial.
12. Therefore, in light of the above, the instant application is allowed, and
the Applicant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to
the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/ Trial Court/ Duty Metropolitan
Magistrate, on the following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;
e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 12 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
g. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
13. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
14. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 17, 2025/as
BAIL APPLN. 3736/2024 Page 13 of 13
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 19/04/2025 at 01:07:18
[ad_2]
Source link