Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. on 19 December, 2022
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10599 of 2022 Applicant :- Deepak Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Uma Dutt Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the Bank, Sri Kulveer Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0042 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Greater Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have taken term loan of Rs.72,64,000/- for a rice mill on 16.10.2007 and later on a credit limit was fixed for the said factory by the bank on 14.03.2012 to the tune of Rs.1.75 crores. The said factory was hypothicated with the Punjab National Bank and the said account was declared NPA and the applicants are stated to have not returned the said amount due towards the bank deliberately and are stated to have shown the factory to have burnt out on 06.07.2009.
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and have nothing to do with the said offence. The said bank has inflated the said amount. The applicants, as bonafide persons, had paid back Rs.32 lacs to the bank, but still the NPA amount to the tune of Rs.1,82,77,253.65/- plus interest is found to be due towards the applicants on 01.4.2013. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants are ready to repay back the amount, but that could be only done after the sale of the said property. Learned counsel has further stated that as the said factory had caught fire on 06.07.2009, noting remained in it as it has been brought to ashes. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.11.2022, wherein there is a report of the Fire Officer corroborating the said averment of fire. The District Magistrate had restrained the opposite party no.2 to take any coercive action against the applicants vide order dated 01.02.2014. The securitization application is pending at DRT, Lucknow as the matter has been finally heard on 02.05.2022 and is pending disposal. Learned counsel has further stated that that the insurance company had paid the applicants for the said loss caused due to the fire to the mill, but that was not adequate. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that at the time of inspection, no remnants of the said fire were present and no traces of burnt instruments or machines were found there. Learned counsel has further stated that the said property has even been sold by the applicants without any authority and there is no likelihood of the said amount being returned back to them and they have deliberately committed forgery and criminal breach of trust with the bank. Learned counsel has further stated that even after the said fire dated 06.07.2009, the cash credit limit was fixed on 14.03.2012, which is not possible as the said limit is fixed after spot inspection only.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the said fire is alleged to have occurred on 06.07.2009 and despite that the cash credit limit has been fixed on 14.03.2012 i.e. about three years thereafter. The said allegations do not find substantiated by any cogent evidence. Under these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. The arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the applicants at bar pertain to regular bail application. They cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Ravi Kant