RANCHI, India, July 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jun 18:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 205 of 2024 for offences alleged under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. As per the First Information Report, loan was sanctioned from Punjab National Bank, Mahavir Chowk Branch, Upper Bazar, Ranchi against her Commercial Hall and she was informed that original copy of the deed would be returned after repaying the loan amount. The informant arranged Rs.30 Lakh to liquidate her loan account and asked for written assurance from the bank that her original deed would be returned but did not get the same. Later on, through a public notice in newspaper the informant got to know that her property had been clubbed with business loan of Shree Pratap Distributors & Ors. and the bank officials illegally wanted to auction her property. It has been alleged that without her consent, her property was clubbed with other loan account.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are high ranking officials of the Punjab National Bank, who have already retired. He submits that the informant by misusing the process of law, has instituted the present first information report with an ulterior motive of putting pressure on the bank for settlement of the loan account and to avoid repayment of liabilities. In fact, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had issued summons for appearance of the informant and even notice was published in newspaper also. Subsequently, the informant appeared and the matter being O.A. 45 of 2023 is still pending for adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that the informant was the guarantor and had extended her property against enhancement of cash credit limit of M/s Shree Pratap Distributors, where proprietor is her Brother-in-law. Hence, the allegation of the informant that without her consent, her property has been clubbed with the load account of M/s Shree Pratap Distributors is absolutely without any basis.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State as also the counsel appearing for the Informant, vehemently, opposed the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant argued that the petitioners, by tampering with the documents with a dishonest intention have defrauded the informant and in fact the informant is neither the borrower nor a guarantor with respect to the loan account of Shri Pratap Distributors.
6. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the available records. The allegations in the First Information Report revolves around the property document of the informant, which are alleged to have been clubbed by the petitioners and other bank officials without the consent of the informant. To counter such allegation, the petitioners contended that the informant was the guarantor and had extended her property against enhancement of cash credit limit of M/s Shree Pratap Distributors. It is also admitted that for realization of the debts against the said loan account of M/s Shree Pratap Distributors, recovery proceeding being O.A. No. 82 of 2022 is pending. Thus, the very basis of allegations made in the First Information Report, prima facie, are also subject matter of dispute in the proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, it is also admitted that only on coming to know of the proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the informant has lodged the present First Information Report. The auction notice of the property is also at the behest of Debt Recovery Tribunal.
7. Thus, considering the nature of allegations and keeping in view the pendency of proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioners are retired Bank officials, I am inclined to allow this Anticipatory Bail Application. The petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their surrender and/or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.205 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the respective bailers should be close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his own name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.
8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
