Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Akbar Bhat & Others vs Ut Of J&K & Another on 13 October, 2023
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 09.10.2023
Pronounced on:13.10.2023
Bail App No.111/2023
MOHAMMAD AKBAR BHAT & OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Azeem, Rasic, Advocate, with
Mr. Tariq-ul-Islam, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioners are seeking bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.211/2023 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered with Police Station, Sopore.
2) The petitioner No.1 had earlier filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest but the same was rejected by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore, in terms of order dated 28.08.2023.
3) It is stated that the petitioners had availed loan from Grameen Bank, Sopore, and the said Bank has now levelled false and frivolous allegations that the revenue extracts submitted by the petitioners at the time of availing the loan were fake. The petitioners have filed the present bail application on the ground that they are innocent and in case they are arrested by the respondent, it will tarnish their reputation and status in the society.
Bail App No.111/2023 Page 1 of 5
4) The respondent was put to notice and Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA, has produced the status report addressed to the Incharge Criminal Monitoring Cell, J&K High Court, Srinagar.
5) Mr. Azeem Rasic, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the petitioners had availed the loan long ago in the year 2011 and now after a period of 12 years, the Bank has lodged the FIR just to harass and force the petitioners to liquidate loan amount.
6) Per contra, Mr. Jahangir, learned GA, submitted that the petitioners had submitted false documents for the purpose of availing the loan facility and when the same came to the knowledge of the complainant-Bank, the FIR was lodged by the Bank. He further submitted that the petitioners are involved in committing the economic offence and, as such, they are not entitled to bail in anticipation of arrest.
7) Heard and perused the record. 8) The perusal of the record reveals that a written report was lodged
by one Khursheed Ahmad Mir, Bank Manager, J&K Grameen Bank, Branch New Colony, Sopore, on 17.08.2023, stating therein that Riyaz Ahmad Dar & Ghulam Mohammad Dar (joint loan Account No.3559020150000212), Waqar Ahmad Bhat (loan Account No.35590201500002020), Abdul Majid Bhat (loan Account No.35590201050000160) and Mohammad Akbar Bhat (loan Account No.3559020150000154) availed financial assistance individually under Cash-Credit Fruit Scheme for business of production cum marketing of Bail App No.111/2023 Page 2 of 5 fruit against the collateral security of mortgage of land in their names from Branch Office New Colony, Sopore. The above mentioned borrowers did not adhere to the terms of the repayment of loan and consequently their loan accounts turned NPAs, which forced the bank to initiate legal action under SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues. In that regard, through letter dated 09.08.2021, the Tehsildar, Tehsil office Watergam, was requested for confirmation of lien and identification of mortgaged land for taking possession under the Act. The Tehsildar, Watergam, vide communication No.TWQ/OQ/2021-22/338 replied with remarks "does not match with the revenue records", meaning thereby that the abovementioned persons/borrowers have by deceitful means and fraudulently managed loan facilities on the strength of fictitious/fabricated, forged revenue land records. On the receipt of this information, FIR No.211/2023 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, correspondence was made with the concerned Tehsildar, who in his report dated 01.09.2023 submitted that the revenue extracts submitted by the accused persons before the J&K Grameen Bank Branch New Colony, Sopore, were found fake and forged and do not match with the revenue records. It also surfaced during investigation that petitioner No.1-Mohammad Akbar Bhat, had obtained loan facility for an amount of Rs.22.00 lacs whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 2 had obtained loan facility of Rs.5.00 lacs each. An amount of Rs.1,40,24,741/ is outstanding in the name of petitioner No.1 whereas an amount of Rs.17,76,990/ and Rs.36,12,910/ is outstanding in the name of petitioners No.2 and 3 Bail App No.111/2023 Page 3 of 5 respectively. It is further stated that two accused persons, namely, Riyaz Ahmad Dar and Ghulam Mohammad Dar were arrested and later on bailed out by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore, on 12.09.2023.
9) The court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore vide order dated 28.08.2023 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the accused is involved in economic offences and allegations against him are serious in nature.
10) In Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Report (SC) 825, it has been held as under:
"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
11) In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
12) Section 438 of the Cr. P. C, which provides for grant of bail to the persons apprehending arrest, is meant for the protection of the persons where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or Bail App No.111/2023 Page 4 of 5 humiliating the said persons. The nature and gravity of the accusation and possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, are also the relevant factors to be considered for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest of a person apprehending arrest.
13) In view of the report placed on record by Mr. Jahangir, learned GA, it is evident that there are serious allegations against the petitioners in respect of deceiving the bank to provide loan facility on the basis of forged and fake revenue records which are the subject matter of investigation, which is at initial stage, and such type of actions have the potential of disturbing the financial health of Banking institutions, therefore, this is not a fit case where indulgence of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. Accordingly, the present petition is found to be misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR 13.10.2023 "Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Bail App No.111/2023 Page 5 of 5