Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner Sachin Mittal filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 84/2023 dated 28.03.2023 registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 420/467/468/471/384/506/120B IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Shobhit Agarwal, Vishal Oberoi, Himanshu Rasgotra and others, had under a well-orchestrated plan induced the complainant Sunil Kumar Gupta to avail two fraudulent home loans aggregating Rs. 6.80 crores by forging property documents relating to properties in Gurugram, thereby cheating him of the loan proceeds and possession of the said properties.
The petitioner was alleged to be the director and major shareholder of M/s. Naman Finlease Pvt. Ltd., an NBFC, and was stated to have directed his associates to prepare forged documents for obtaining fraudulent loans from nationalised and private banks to infuse funds into the said firm and to repay private money lenders. Funds from the fraudulently obtained home loans were traced through bank accounts connected to M/s. Naman Finlease Pvt. Ltd., and mobile connectivity was established between the petitioner and co-accused. Investigation had also revealed 16 other fraudulent home loan cases involving overlapping accused persons.
The Delhi High Court examined the bail application in the context of the seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner as the alleged kingpin of the fraudulent scheme, the involvement of multiple properties and banks, the flight of accused persons to Dubai to evade arrest, and the stage of investigation and trial. The court proceeded to consider the matter on merits in accordance with the settled principles governing grant of bail in economic offence cases.
Catchwords:
bail · regular bail · Section 439 Cr.P.C. · cheating · forgery · forged documents · home loan fraud · NBFC · criminal conspiracy · extortion · economic offence · flight risk · bank fraud · property fraud
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Mittal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2576/2023
SACHIN MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Garvil Singh, Mr. Sidharth Singh,
Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Singh,
Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Mr. Inder Kumar,
Ms. Janhavi Singh and Ms. Nisha Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
with SI Chandan, PS Special Cell.
Mr
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
