Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravi B vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 June, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:20577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) Nos. : 459 to 461, 922 &
923 of 2025
.
Reserved on : 23rd June, 2025
Decided on : 30th June, 2025
1. Cr.MP (M) No.459 of 2025
Ravi B. ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
2. to
Cr.MP (M) No.460 of 2025
r ...Respondent
Navjot ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
3. Cr.MP (M) No.461 of 2025
Siddharth Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
4. Cr.MP (M) No.922 of 2025
Ravinder Kumar Agarwal ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
2 2025:HHC:20577
5. Cr.MP (M) No.923 of 2025
Suman Jain ...Applicant
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant(s) : Applicants Ravi B., Navjot,
Siddharth Srivastava, Ravinder
Kumar Aggarwal, Suman Jain, in
person with Mr. Shrawan Dogra,
rSenior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional
Advocate General, assisted by ASI
Vijay Sharma, I.O. Police Station,
Barotiwala, Baddi, for the
respondent.
Complainant in person with Mr. V.S.
Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge
The above titled applications, are being decided
by a common order. The applicants have filed these
applications, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’),
as they are apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.11 of
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
3 2025:HHC:20577
2025, dated 29.01.2025, registered, under Sections 420,
467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
.
referred to as ‘IPC‘), with Police Station Barotiwala, District
Solan.
2. By way of the present applications, indulgence
of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/
Investigating Officer of Police Station Barotiwala Baddi,
District Solan, H.P., to release the applicants on bail, in the
event of their arrest, in the above noted case.
3. According to the applicants, they are innocent
persons and have falsely been implicated by the Police, in
this case, at the instance of the complainant. They have
termed the prosecution story as false and fabricated one.
4. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded
that the complainant, along with its partner Rajesh Singhal
in firm M/s Vishwakarma Techno Forge, Village Dharoa
Post Office Badhone Ghat, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan,
H.P., availed OD/CC Limits in the year 2016 for an amount
of Rs.85,00,000/ and other term loans and mortgaged a
building situated over Khata Khatoni No. 5/5, Khasra No.
13/1(1001), Village Dharoha, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan,
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
4 2025:HHC:20577
Himachal Pradesh, which is in the name of M/s
Vishwakarma Techno Forge.
.
5. It is the further case of the applicants that
thereafter, to induct capital in the business, one Arpit
Mittal was inducted as a partner in place of Sh. Rajesh
Singhal and after the induction of new partner and
guarantors (Ashok Mittal & Chetna Mittal, parents of Arpit
Mittal) and the limit was enhanced from Rs.85,00,000/to
Rs.3,00,00,000/ in addition to the previous CC Limit and
Term Loan.
6. As per the applicants, apart from the personal
guarantee, they also mortgaged his residential house, i.e.,
House No.98, Sector4, Panchkula. Since, the complainant
and his partners could not maintain the financial
discipline, as such, the account turned as Non Performing
Asset (NPA) and proceedings under SARFAESI Act were
initiated. Notice for possession was also issued and the
symbolic possession was taken. Thereafter, according to
the applicant, the present FIR has been lodged.
7. According to the applicant that apart from the
present case, one of the guarantors has also filed identical
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
5 2025:HHC:20577
complaint before the Dy.SP, Sub Division Central, Police
Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and thereafter, closure
.
report was submitted. Not only this, identical complaint
was moved through Chetna Mittal, W/o Ashok Mittal,
before the SHO, Economic Offence Wing, Sector 12,
Panchkula and the said matter is still pending enquiry.
Both the guarantors Ashok Mittal & Chetna Mittal had also
filed a Civil Suit bearing No.CS/23/2025 in Civil Courts,
Panchkula, which is also pending.
8. The applicants have termed the FIR, registered
against them as based upon the concocted story, just to
involve the responsible officers of the Bank and arm
twisting method to settle the financial dispute, whereas,
according to the applicants, there are serious
concealments in the complaint filed by the complainant
regarding the identical complaint.
9. Applicant Ravi B., has asserted that when he
came to know about the registration of the said FIR, he has
approached this Court, by filing similar application on
06.02.2025, in which, the Registry had raised certain
objections, and thereafter, the applicant preferred
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
6 2025:HHC:20577
anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nalagarh.
.
10. Applicant Ravi B., has also asserted the fact
that since no order has been passed by this Court, as
such, under this impression the applicant has got
mentioned in the bail application filed before Additional
Sessions Judge, Nalagarh that the applicant has not filed
another bail application before any other Court of law, in
which, notices were issued for 05.03.2025 and in the
meanwhile, the bail application filed before this Hon’ble
Court was registered on 03.03.2025 due to communication
gap between the counsel in trial Court and counsel before
this Hon’ble Court.
11. When, the applicant came to know that the bail
application, which was listed before this Hon’ble Court on
04.03.2025, same was withdrawn with liberty to avail the
remedy before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
12. It is the further case of the applicant Ravi B.
that the application moved by the applicant before the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh was
dismissed only on the ground that he cannot avail the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
7 2025:HHC:20577
remedy before the Sessions Court, once he has filed the
similar application before the Hon’ble High Court.
.
13. Asserting the fact that the applicants are from
respectable families, as such, having deep roots in the
society, a prayer has been made to allow the applications.
14. When put to notice, the police has filed
the status report, disclosing therein, that on 29.01.2025,
complainant Dinesh Singhal, has made a complaint to
Police Station Barotiwala Baddi, disclosing therein the
following facts:
“Criminal Complainant for registration of FIR
u/s 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,379, 120B
and other relevant sections against Mr. Navjot
Manager, Mr. Sidharth Srivastava (Authorized
Officer Chief Manager, Mrs. Suman Jam the then
Chief Manager, SCO:167168, Sector SC,
Chandigarh and their other Banking Officers
and bank recovery agent namely MPS Rattan,
R/O Mohali, who have done forgery and fraud
with the applicant as they knowingly forged and
fabricated/doctored documents/guarantee
papers/guarantee forms/sanction letter and
other papers given by the applicants Respected
Sir/Mam, We.partners of M/S Vishwakarma
Technoforge namely Dinesh Singhal and Arpit
Mittal states as follow:1. That in fact applicant
Dinesh Singhal, entered into a partnershipdeed
agreement with another applicant Arpit Mittal in
the month of June 2022 for M/S Vishwakarma
Technoforge. Village Dharon, PO Badhonighat,
Teh. Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P and afterwards the
said company applied for enhancement of its CC
limit with Canara Bank, SCO:167168, Sector
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
8 2025:HHC:20577
C. Chandigarh while Arpit Mittal and Dinesh
Singhal, were to stand as borrowers cum
guarantors by mortgaging their factory, it’s land
& building plus machinery to the extent of
.
enhanced CC limit only and they were clarified
by the above named bank officials namely Mr.
Navjot and Mrs. Suman Jain that old loans
taken by the old partner of the Vishwakarma
Technoforge were either in their personal
capacity or the same are already secured
through factory land, building and machines of
M/S Vishwakarma Technoforge. Since it was
assured by the authorized officer cum Chief
Manager of the bank namely Mrs. Suman and
Mr. Navjot, Manager that the applicant Dinesh
Singhal and Arpit Mittal have to give guarantee
only to the extent to the enhanced limit i e. from
Rs. 85 lakhs to Rs.3 Crores. However the
officials of the bank namely Mr. Navjot and Mrs.
Suman Jain got some signatures of the applicant
Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal on some papers
on the pretext that the bank has to take
approval from HSVP/HUDA Panchkula Office
and Revenue Office, Baddi so as to get the
property mortgaged with them on which the
applicant Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal signed
some papers where the bank officials have
alrendy wrote with the pon the initial of the
name of the applicant as “D” (Dinesh Singhal)
and applicant as “AM” (Arpit Mittal) and on the
pretext of getting approval permission to
mortgaged they got signature of applicant
Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal on various
printed papers/forms and some blank papers as
well. 2.
That a sanction letter dated 10/08/2022 and
other documents were got signed by the
applicant Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal. And
as per the bank officials themselves the other
loan ie. GECL1 and GECL2 and other loan
account were already secured. 3. That after
induction of capital (in way of enhanced CC
Limit) by newly inducted partner Arpit Mittal the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
9 2025:HHC:20577
firm tried to again start production of die steel
and other products however since the factory
was not situated in a good geographical
condition and as the factory is also hit by its
.
weather condition but account was wrongly
declared NPA and thereafter the bank initiated
wrong SARFAESI proceeding against the
partners and guarantors and issued demand
notice. Arpit Mittal was surprised to see the
wrong loan amount in bank notice u/s 13(2) of
SARFESI Act and filed objections to the demand
notice specially raising objection with regard to
mortgage and other loan documents that
however the bank officials failed to decide the
specific objections raised by Arpit Mittal on
which the applicant Dinesh Singhal and Arpit
Mittal approached the bank and raised
objections before Manager Mr.Navjot and Mr.
Sidharth Srivastava on which the applicant
Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal were informed
that the bank officials were having the
signatures of applicant Dinesh Singhal and Arpit
Mittal on the blank papers and on the blank
form which the bank can use against them on
which the applicant Dinesh Singhal and Arpit
Mittal requested the bank officials to give them
the photocopies of their guarantee
document/sanction letter and other papers
however, the bank denied to provide the same.
Later on the accused Sidharth Srivastava who is
now the Chief Manager of Canara Bank filed
section 14 application before Deputy
Commissioner by giving totally false and
frivolous affidavit alleging therein that the
aggregate amount of financial assistance given
to the borrower guarantor was Rs.3,70,95,000/
as on 05.08.2022 and previous date whereas in
fact the guarantee was given only on
12.08.2022. Infact a forged and frivolous
affidavit who has intentionally filed by the
Authonsed officer/Chief Manager Mr.Sidharth
Srivastava 4. That now the
applicants/complainant came to know that the
bank officials namely Mr. Navjot, Mrs Suman
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:20577
Jain Mr.Sidharth Srivastava, Mr. Ravi AGM
Authorized Officer of Loan department Canara
Bank and Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal the then AGM
Authorized Officer of Loan department Canara
.
Bank, by misusing the blank signed papers got
signed by them in the name of taking the
approval from Panchkula office of HSVP/HUDA
and Revenue Department, Baddi prepared
forged and fabricated guarantee documents
dated 04.08.2022 / 05.08.2022 and the bank
officials by forging, by fabricating and by taking
misuse of signatures of applicants and
guarantors on some blank papers and blank
forms only are blackmailing all of them. The act
and conduct of the above named bank officials
is also proved from the fact that infact to Estate
Officer HUDA also they have not applied for
permission of mortgage to the tune of
Rs.3,61,65,000/ and even in revenue record
also they have not entered their lien to the extent
of Rs 3,61,65,000/ the said fact also proved the
misdeeds of above named accused bank
officials That the guarantee agreement
guarantee covering letter dated 05.08.2022 with
regard to limit upto Rs.3,61,65,000/ also
carries wrong residential address of both the
guaranteerseven and those documents are
annexed. Infact the document relied upon by the
bank as with regard to guarantee agreement
itself shows that the signature on blank papers
have been lateron misused since the signatures
of the applicant as well as Arpit Mittal were
taken by mentioning their name as “D” (Dinesh
Singhal) and “AM” (Arpit Mittal) on all the
guaranteer documents is proved that their
signatures have been taken on the blank
forms/papers and lateron same was misused
by the bank officials named above mentioning
wrong date ie 05.08 2022 5. That the accused
Mr. Navjot Manager/Authorized Officer,
Mr.Sidharth Srivastava Chief Manager, Mrs
Suman Jain the then Chief Manager, Mr. Ravi
AGM Authorized Officer of Loan department
Canara Bank and Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal.the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
11 2025:HHC:20577
then AGM Authorized Officer of Loan department
Canara Bank Head Office, Plot Number 1,
Sector14, Chandigarh, SCO:167168, Sector 8
C, Chandigarh have made themselves liable to
.
be prosecuted under section 406,409,420, 467,
468, 471, 120B IPC for forging and fabricating
the guarantee documents of the applicant and
his wife on following grounds:a) That the
application filed by Sidharth Srivastava before
District Magistrate having a supporting affidavit
also having the content that the financial
assistance granted to the guarantors/borrowers
on 05.08.2022 was Rs.3,70,95,000/whereas
infact the CC Limit was enhanced only after
12.08.2022 when the original title deeds were
given to the bank hence the application as well
as affidavit given by the accused Mr. Sidharth
Srivastava, Authorised office Chief Manager is
also result of fraud and forgery done by the
bank officials with applicant b)That bank while
getting the permission from HUDA on date 10.08
2022 also does not sought permission for
3,61,65,000/ and while getting the mortgaged
entered into revenue record, Baddi the charges
has not been extended to the extent of Rs
3,61,65000/ the same fact also proved that the
fraud and forgery has been done by the bank
and its officials, c) That the accused officers of
the bank have abe done forgery with the
guarantors also and have prepared fraudulent
guarantee agreement also and have prepared a
forged papers regarding deposit of title deed.
The guarantee agreement prepared on dated
05.08.2022 having guarantee covering letter
dated 05.08.2022 to the extent of
Rs.3,61,65,000 is also a forged and fabricated
document since when the titled deods were
received only on 12.08.2022 when there can’t be
a guarantee covering letter prior to that moreover
the guarantee covering letter relied upon the
bank shows that where ever there are signature
of applicant is initial were there as AM which
shows that a blank filled proforma form has
been misused by the bank so as to prepare a
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
12 2025:HHC:20577
guarantee covering letter. d) That Canara Bank
in its OA filed at DRT, Chandigarh states that all
the original papers of House No. 98, sector 4,
Panchkula were submitted on 04/08/2022. But
.
all the original papers of House number 98,
sector 4, Panchkula were already mortgaged
with The Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank,
VillageRally. Sector 12A, Panchkula from
22/04/2022 till 12/08/2022 for personal loan
taken by Ashok Mittal, Chetna Mittal and Arpit
Mittal. The Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank
released all the the original title deed and other
original papers of House number 98, sector 4.
Panchkula on 12/08/2022 after the personal
loan was cleared on 11/08/2022 and
12/08/2022.6. That under the illegal and
unlawful SARFAESI proceedings the erring
officials of the bank with unlawful motive took
physical possession of the factory premises.
Infact, the applicants with their consent gave the
possession however, the bank with the malafide
intention took the physical possession and
appointed some agency of bank recovery agent
namely MPS Rattan of Mohali who deployed his
goons in the premises and now the bank
officials and the said MPS Rattan alongwith his
goons are illegally selling the factoryequipment’s
including electricity parts, machinery parts and
other material of the factory. The applicants
came to know about the illegal activities of the
bank officials and said bank recovery agent
namely MPS Rattan and his goons by the local
residents of the same vincity who disclosed the
applicant that daily they came in their private
vehicles in the premises and after loading
certain materials with the help of their goons
they used to fled away on the side. The nearby
residents are even ready to make the statement
with regard to theft done in the factory infact,
the accused/bank officials and the socalled
agency of bank recovery agent namely MPS
Rattan are illegally selling the machinery parts
from the factory and illegally are visiting the
premises on daily basis with unlawful motive.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
13 2025:HHC:20577
All above shows that Navjot, Sidharth
Srivastava, Suman Jainknowingly and
intentionally by forging, fabricating and
misusing the papers of the complainant/
.
applicants etc unlawfully want to grab the
property mortgaged in the loan and have
prepared fraudulent guarantee agreement,
fraudulent deposit of title deed papers,
fraudulent letter with regard to permission of
mortgage and have fabricated many other loan
documents hence, all the bank officials involved
in granting loan and disbursing loan are
personally responsible hence the FIR be
registered against them and strict legal action be
taken against the erring bank officials as well as
bank recovery agent namely MPS Rattan who is
now illegally is doing regular theft in the factory
premises. Thanking You”
15. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to take action against the accused persons,
upon which, the police registered the FIR, in question and
the police machinery swung into motion.
16. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was
entrusted to ASI Naresh Kumar, I.O. Police Station
Barotiwala Baddi, District Solan.
17. On 10.2.2025, the complainant has produced
the relevant documents of the case, which were taken into
possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.PC.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
14 2025:HHC:20577
18. It is a case of the Police that it was found that
during investigation, as well as, on the basis of the papers
.
submitted by the complainant, that the Firm M/S
Vishwakarma Technoforge Company was having five loan
accounts, with Canara Bank, Sector 8C Chandigarh. The
loan amount involved in those loan accounts is stated to be
Rs.85,00,000/ and in order to enhance the limit of those
loan accounts, r complainant and his partner had made
correspondence with Canara Bank, which amount was
enhanced to the extent of Rs.2,15,00,000/ for the CC
account No.2451261000557. Father of complainant Ashok
Mittal and his mother Chetna Mittal, stood guarantors for
M/S Vishwakarma Technoforge Company.
19. Thereafter, the Bank has demanded the papers
of the property to get mortgaged, in lieu of the loan, upon
which, on 12.8.2022, Ashok Mittal had acquired loan from
Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank, Sector 12A, village Raily
Panchkula and obtained No Due Certificate and deposited
the requisite papers with Canara Bank, Sector8 Branch
Chandigarh.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:20577
20. Along with Ashok Mittal, his wife Chetna Mittal,
son Arpit Mittal and complainant Dinesh Singhal and his
.
brother Rajesh Singhal, had gone to the Branch of the
Bank and deposited the original papers.
21. On 12.8.2022, the officers of Canara Bank, had
obtained signatures over the blank papers and forms,
however, the original papers of the property of Ashok Mittal
were shown to be deposited with Canara Bank on
4/5.8.2022. After some time, due to their bad financial
conditions, the said account had become NPA, whereas,
the Canara Bank, in order to get the amount recovered has
submitted forged guarantee papers of Rs.3,61,65,000/,
instead of Rs.2,15,00,000/ before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, whereas, according to the Police, Ashok Mittal
and Chetna Mittal stood guarantors only for
Rs.2,15,00,000/.
22. The guarantee papers were sent to them on
12.08.2022 and at that time, the bank has apprised them
that they only stood guarantors of the loan amounting to
Rs.2,15,00,000/ and for the old loan of Rs.85,00,000/
and other loans, the factory and the land upon which the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
16 2025:HHC:20577
factory has been established, along with machinery, has
been mortgaged.
.
23. It is the further case of the police that the Bank
officials got their signatures, over the guarantee papers of
Rs.2,15,00,000/ and they misused the blank papers and
got prepared the guarantee papers and other relevant
documents.
24. It is the further case of the police that the
applicants, in this case, have joined the investigation.
25. Applicant Ravi B. has disclosed that the original
title deed No.2663/1, dated 12.8.2022 was deposited with
the Bank by Ashok Mittal and Chetna Mittal on 12.8.2022,
by way of which they stood guarantors for a sum of
Rs.2,15,00,000/, which has been enhanced from
Rs.85,00,000/ to Rs.3,00,00,000/.
26. When, it has been inquired that since sanction
letter dated 10.8.2022, bears his signatures, as well as,
signatures of both partners Dinesh Singhal and Arpit
Mittal, why the document sanction memorandum does not
bear the signatures of both the parties and the Bank
Manager, upon which, accused Navjot disclosed that the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
17 2025:HHC:20577
sanction memorandum was approved by Assistant General
Manager, Chandigarh, as such, the same does not bear his
.
signatures as they are authorized only to sanction loan
upto Rs.25,00,000/.
27. Accused Navjot Singh has termed both the
sanction letters as genuine, however, according to him,
sanction letter dated 5.8.2022, was issued by AGM Office
Sector34, Chandigarh, whereas, letter dated 10.8.2022,
was issued by their Branch and they had sanctioned letter
dated 10.8.2022, as per the scheme of the Bank.
28. In nut shell, it is the case of the prosecution
that the accused persons had got prepared two sanction
letters dated 5.8.2022 and 10.8.2022, regarding the loan
and when the bank has initiated the recovery proceedings,
for a sum of Rs.3,61,65,000/, instead of
Rs.2,15,00,000/, by depositing the forged guarantee
papers, in the recovery proceedings before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, whereas, Ashok Mittal and Chetna
Mittal, had signed the guarantee papers for
Rs.2,15,00,000/. When their signatures were obtained on
12.8.2022, it had been apprised to them that both of them
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
18 2025:HHC:20577
stood guarantors only for a sum of Rs.2,15,00,000/ and
guarantee of old loan is stated to be the papers of factory,
.
including the land over which the factory has been
established and machinery installed there.
29. It has also been highlighted in the status report
that applicant Ravi B. has filed similar application before
the Court of learned Additional Sesssions Judge, which
was dismissed on 5.3.2025.
30. On the basis of the above facts, interim
protection was given to the applicants Ravi B., Navjot and
Siddharth Srivastva on 10.3.2025, and applicants
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal and Suman Jain, on 30.4.2025.
31. In the status report, which has been filed on
25.3.2025, it has been pleaded that on 13.3.2025,
applicant Siddharth Srivastva, has produced original and
attested copies of the documents, which were taken into
possession. However, according to the Police, letter
evidencing deposit of title deeds, has not been produced.
Not only this, the bank official is stated to have mentioned
the wrong home address and amount in the documents.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
19 2025:HHC:20577
32. The original guarantee papers, which were
produced by applicant Siddharth Srivastva, home address
.
has wrongly been shown. Highlighting the fact that as per
the documents, letter evidencing deposit of title deeds, the
original is stated to be deposited by Ashok Mittal and
Chetna Mittal with Bank, whereas, as per the documents
produced on 13.3.2025, original sale deed was deposited
on 12.8.2022. r However, none of the applicants could
produce any documents or receipt that the title deeds were
deposited on 12.8.2022 with the Bank.
33. In addition to this, a stand has also been taken
that during investigation, it has been found that the
documents dated 5.8.2022, of Canara Bank Sector8
Chandigarh is the only sanction memorandum, which has
been explained as sanction letter by the Bank officials, as
the same does not bear signatures of the bank officials nor
the signatures of the partners, whereas, in the sanction
letter dated 10.8.2022, complainant and his partner Arpit
Mittal have signed the same.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
20 2025:HHC:20577
34. It is the further case of the police that when the
notice was served upon applicant Siddharth Srivastva, he
.
has submitted the reply, which is reproduced as under:
“This is with reference to your subject notice
wherein you have sought certain originaldocuments for investigation. Please find the
pointwise reply to your notice: 1. The existing
OCC limit of Rs 85.00 lacs granted to M/s
Vishwakarma Technoforge was enhanced to Rs
300.00 lacs with other existing term liabilitiesremaining intact. The total exposure of the firm
after enhancement was Rs 361.65 lacs including
existing term loans. The guarantee agreements
were executed by Mr Dinesh Singhal, Mr ArpitMittal, Mr Rajesh Singhal, Mr Ashok Mittal and
Mrs Chetna Mittal for the total exposure of Rs
361.65 lacs. The original guarantee agreements
executed by all partners and guarantors have
already been provided to you vide your seizure
memo dated 13.03.2025. (2.) Letter evidencingdeposit of title deeds dated 05.08.2022 is the
part and parcel of the property mortgage process
of the Bank. Since the property situated atHouse No. 98, Sector 4, Panchkula has been
sold in eauction to the auction purchaser underSARFAESI Act and chain documents are
transferred to third party and same are not
available in the present loan file.”
35. Similarly, according to the supplementary
status report, accused Navjot Singh has disclosed that on
17.6.2022, partners of M/s Vishwakarma Technoforge
Company, Mr. Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal, had
requested to enhance the loan amount from
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
21 2025:HHC:20577
Rs.85,00,000/ to Rs.3,00,00,000/. Application was
moved to their Branch at Sector8, Chandigarh, however,
.
the said branch was authorized only to sanction loan upto
Rs.25,00,000/, as such, the matter was submitted to
Regional Office, Section 34, Chandigarh. All the papers
were submitted and on 5.8.2022, loan was approved by the
Regional Office, whereas, from their Branch, the said loan
was sanctioned on 10.8.2022.
36. For the increased amount of loan, Ashok Mittal
and Chetna Mittal, stood guarantors, by mortgaging the
sale deed of House No.98, Sector 4, Panchkula. When the
application for enhancement of loan was made on
17.6.2022, at that time, the amount of Rs.1,46,65,000/
was due against M/s Vishwakarma Technoforge Company,
which after addition of amount of Rs.2,15,00,000/ comes
to Rs.3,61,65,000/. As such, the Bank officials had
informed the partners through Supplemental Common
Hypothecation Agreement, which bears signatures of the
partners. The guarantee agreement dated 5.8.2022, was
prepared, in which amount of Rs.3,61,65,000/ has been
shown, which includes all loan and limit.
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
22 2025:HHC:20577
37. On 10.8.2022, Sub Registrar Baddi and HUDA
Sector6, Panchkula were supplied with letter of mortgage,
.
in which two GECL loan of Rs.14,65,000/ and
Rs.17,00,000/ total Rs.31,65,000/, were deleted,
whereas, Dinesh Singhal and Arpit Mittal have accepted
every liability of the firm.
38. Applicant Siddharth Srivastva has also
disclosed that the Bank account of M/s Vishwakarma
Technoforge Company were NPA and recovery proceedings
were initiated. The notices under the SARFAESI Act were
issued to the firm partners and guarantors and the notices
were also published in the newspapers. Those properties,
which were mortgaged by the guarantors were put for
auction, upon which, Ashok Mittal and Chetna Mittal had
obtained the order from DRT. As per the order, partners
and guarantors will deposit Rs.5,00,000/ per month upto
31.5.2024 and they will hand over the possession of the
properties of Firm to Bank on 28.12.2023.
39. As per the order, guarantors and partners
issued a cheque of Rs.9,00,000/ on 22.12.2023 and
handed over the same to the Bank, in the Court itself and
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
23 2025:HHC:20577
on 26.12.2023, possession of the land of firm was handed
over to the bank. The loan amount, as per the Court order
.
was to be cleared on or before 31.5.2024 and it has been
ordered that if within the prescribed limit, amount has not
been cleared, in that event, guarantors Ashok Mittal and
Chetna Mittal will hand over the possession of their house
No.98, Sector4, Panchkula to the Bank.
40. It is the further case of applicant Sidharth
Srivastva that the possession of the house has not been
given and they have also stopped paying the installments.
Consequently, in the month of June, 2024, DRT
Chandigarh has passed an order for eauction of the house
of the guarantors Ashok Mittal and Chetna Mittal. The
same was sold to Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal son of Shri
Ram Swaroop.
41. On 18.4.2025, documents, which were
demanded by the Police were handed over to the Police,
which were taken into possession. Thereafter, applicant
Suman Jain and Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, also joined the
investigation. On 3.5.2025, applicant Ravinder Kumar has
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
24 2025:HHC:20577
submitted his statement to the police, which was also
reproduced in the status report on 17.6.2025.
.
42. Perusal of the record shows that on 22.6.2025,
all accused have joined the investigation.
43. On the basis of the stand as taken in the status
reports so filed, it has been argued by Mr. Varun Chandel,
learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. V.S.
Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arsh
Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the complainant, in this
case, that the applicants are not ordinary persons, but
respectable bank officers and they had forged the
guarantee given by Ashok Mittal and Chetna Mittal, as
both of them stood guarantors only for Rs.2,15,00,000/
and they had forged the documents by enhancing the same
by showing them to be a guarantors for Rs.3,61,65,000/.
44. It has also been prayed that economic offences
are different from other offences and the same are to be
dealt with stringently, so that faith of the common masses
in the bank system should not be shaken.
45. Per contra, it is the stand of Shri Shrawan
Dogra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
25 2025:HHC:20577
Dalmia, Advocate, that the applicant, in pursuance of the
direction of this Court, has joined the investigation as and
.
when directed by the I.O./Police to do so and submitted all
the documents.
46. Moreover, it is the stand of the applicants that
all the documents are with the bank and were taken into
possession by the police. In this case, it is not the case of
the prosecution that the applicants have taken away the
documents with them and have not produced the same.
Applicants are bank officers and whatsoever allegations
have been levelled against them with regard to the
enhancement of the amount of guarantee, that will be
proved during the trial.
47. At the time of deciding the bail application,
detailed discussion of the evidence, so collected, by the
prosecution or about the defence, which has been taken,
by the applicant, should be avoided, as, it would cause
prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to that
of the accused (applicant).
48. In none of the status reports, the prayer for
custodial interrogation has been made by the I.O. nor the
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
26 2025:HHC:20577
learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, learned
counsel appearing for the complainant, insisted for
.
custodial interrogation and in the absence of cogent
reasons for custodial interrogation, the bail applications
cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment as pretrial
punishment is prohibited under the law. Punishment can
only be imposed, after the full fledged trial.
49. Even otherwise, except the present case, no
other criminal history of the applicants has been
mentioned, in the status report. As such, presumption of
innocence is still available to the applicants.
50. The applicants have joined the investigation, as
and when, directed by the I.O. to do so and it is not the
case of the police that in case, the interim order is made
absolute, they may not be available for the trial.
51. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia &
Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section
438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
27 2025:HHC:20577
himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph
43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
.
43. During the last couple of years this Court,
while dealing with appeals against orders
passed by various High Courts, has granted
anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing
conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
The Court has, in addition, directed in most of
those cases that (a) the applicant should
surrender himself to the police for a brief period
if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to
have surrendered himself if such a discovery is
to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the
Court has, in view of the material placed before
it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will
remain in operation only for a week or so until
after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters
covered by the order. These orders, on the
whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the
least inconvenience to the individuals concerned
and least interference with the investigational
rights of the police. The Court has attempted
through those orders to strike a balance
between the individual’s right to personal
freedom and the investigational rights of the
police. The appellants who were refused
anticipatory bail by various courts have long
since been released by this Court under Section
438(1) of the Code.
52. In the status reports, the prayer has been
opposed mainly on the ground that applicants are not
giving the true information with regard to the alleged
offence. The alleged refusal/noncooperation of the
applicants, to the considered opinion of this Court, could
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
28 2025:HHC:20577
not be the ground for dismissal of the applications, as no
one can be compelled to be the witness against himself, as
.
the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India. It is not the case of the police that some recovery is
to be effected from the applicants or at their instance.
53. If the facts and circumstances of the present
case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah
versus Kamal Dayani & Others, (2025) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 753, the applicants are entitled to the relief,
as claimed, in the applications. Relevant paragraph 43 of
judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“43. We are of the firm opinion that non
cooperation by the accused is one matter and
the accused refusing to confess to the crime is
another. There would be no obligation upon the
accused that on being interrogated, he must
confess to the crime and only thereafter, would
the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the
accused has cooperated with the investigation.
As a matter of fact, any confession made by the
accused before a police officer is inadmissible in
evidence and cannot even form a part of the
record.”
54. Considering the totality of circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
29 2025:HHC:20577
the applicants, is required to be made absolute, as, no
useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present
.
applications, which would result into the judicial custody
of the applicants.
55. Considering all these facts, the interim orders
dated 10.03.2025/30.04.2025, passed by this Court, in all
the five cases, are hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is
ordered that the applicants be released on bail, in the
event of their arrest, in case FIR No.11 of 2025, dated
29.01.2025, registered with Police Station Barotiwala
Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, of the IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the
sum of ₹50,000/, each with one surety each of the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
This order, however, shall be subject to the following
conditions :
a) That the applicants will join the investigation of
the case, as and when, called for, by the
Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;
b) That the applicants will not leave India, without
prior permission of the Court;
c) That the applicants will not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS
30 2025:HHC:20577
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts
to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and
d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial
.
Court on each and every date of hearing and if
prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption
from appearance by filing appropriate application.
56. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present applications.
57. The applicants are directed to move regular bail
applications, when charge sheet will be filed in the
Competent Court of Law.
58. It is made clear that the respondentState is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the
applicants.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
June 30, 2025 (ps)
::: Downloaded on – 30/06/2025 21:21:21 :::CIS