[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Amanpreet Singh Malhotra vs State Of Delhi And Anr on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2427/2025
AMANPREET SINGH MALHOTRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Vignesh,
Mr. Manibhadra Jain, Mr. Sushant
Singhal and Mr. Dipesh Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Pardeep Kumar, PS: Rajouri
Garden.
Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
CRL.M.A. 19199/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted
documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2427/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19198/2025 (for interim
protection)
BAIL APPLN. 2427/2025 Page 1 of 4
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 09/07/2025 at 21:55:37
4. The Applicant is implicated in FIR No. 180/2025 for the offences
under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 registered at
PS: Rajouri Garden. This FIR was lodged at the instance of the
Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who is the Applicant’s wife. She alleged
that the Applicant, along with other co-accused, fraudulently and dishonestly
misappropriated her 18,000 shares in Malhotra Electronics Private Limited,
a company owned by the Applicant and his relatives. She alleged that the
said transfer of shares was carried out by forging documents, and without
her authority or written consent.
5. At the outset, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Counsel for the Applicant,
invites the attention of this Court to the detailed order dated 25th June, 2025,
passed by a coordinate bench of this Court. By the said order, this Court
allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by the co-accused, who are
relatives of the Applicant.
6. Claiming parity on the basis of the aforenoted decision, Mr. Mathur
emphasises that there is no need for the Applicant’s custodial interrogation.
He submits that the Applicant is nonetheless willing to fully cooperate and
join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.2
7. On the other hand, Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Counsel for Respondent
No. 2, contends that the Investigating Agency has not yet recovered the
Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) and the letter requesting the transfer of the
Complainant’s shares, which are crucial documents, and constitute a pre-
requisite for effecting the share transfer. He alleges these documents have
been forged by the Applicant and must be recovered from him. Accordingly,
1
“IPC”
2
“IO”
BAIL APPLN. 2427/2025 Page 2 of 4
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 09/07/2025 at 21:55:37
he argues that his custodial interrogation is necessary to facilitate a fair and
thorough investigation. Mr. Sharma further submits that the Applicant’s
claim that such documents do not exist is untenable, and cannot be relied
upon to seek interim protection. Accepting such a plea, he contends, would
undermine the entire case of forgery, as it would allow an accused to simply
deny the existence of incriminating documents to evade investigation.
8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. Presently, the
matter is at the initial stage of investigation. The Applicant has expressed his
willingness to participate and cooperate in the investigation. As regards the
Complainant’s argument concerning the alleged unavailability of the SH-4
form, it is apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in its
order dated 25th June, 2025, the relevant portion of which is extracted as
follows:
“63. When it is admitted that Form No. SH-4 was not executed, the
question of forgery on the said document does not arise. Whether the Form
No. SH-4 is a “valuable security” within the meaning of Section 30 of IPC
and whether there was any cheating or misappropriation of shares of the
Complainant was undertaken by the Applicants will be a matter of trial and,
at this stage, it will not be appropriate to comment on the merits of the
investigation, which is ongoing.
xx ... xx ... xx
67 The investigation in the present case hinges entirely on
documentary evidence comprising of the Board Resolutions of the
Company, List of Share Transfer and Form No. SH-4. The Applicants have
provided all the documentary evidence and repeatedly asserted that no such
Form No. SH-4 was ever executed. Even the Company has mentioned that
Form No. SH-4 is not traceable in the records of the Company and the RoC
has also not provided the same to the IO, which supports the stand of the
Applicant about non-existence of Form No. SH-4. Notably, the custodial
interrogation is requested only to ascertain the possession of Form No. SH-
4. When no such document exists as admitted by the Applicants, there is no
purpose of custodial interrogation of the Applicants.
68. The Applicants have joined the investigation and responded to
multiple notices under Section 94 of BNSS. They do not have any prior
criminal antecedents. They have provided replies and submitted auditedBAIL APPLN. 2427/2025 Page 3 of 4
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 09/07/2025 at 21:55:37
financial reports of the Company for past several years. While the IO
alleges non-cooperation due to non-production of Form No. SH-4, the
Applicants have consistently maintained that the said document does not
exist. The mere non-production of a document not in the
possession/existence of the Applicants cannot be equated with their non-
cooperation.”
9. In light of the forgoing, it is directed that the Applicant shall join
investigation, and appear before the IO on 11th July.
10. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken against
the Applicant, subject to his joining the investigation as and when directed
by the IO. It is also directed that the Applicant shall not leave GNCTD
without prior permission of the Trial Court.
11. The IO shall issue a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., specifying the
list of documents that the Applicant is required to produce for the purposes
of the ongoing investigation.
12. Issue notice. Counsel mentioned in appearance above accept notice.
13. Reply/ status report be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder
thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
14. Re-notify on 18th August, 2025.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 8, 2025/d.negi
BAIL APPLN. 2427/2025 Page 4 of 4
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 09/07/2025 at 21:55:37
[ad_2]
Source link