Jharkhand High Court
Kameshwar Kumar Mittal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 475 of 2013
-------
Kameshwar Kumar Mittal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
-------
13/ 15.07.2014An urgency slip was filed by the counsel for the applicant and therefore, the matter has been listed today.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 244 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.4052 of 2012 registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is a registered valuer and the only role assigned to him is to value the property. The identification of the property was not the responsibility of the applicant and in fact while valuing the property, the applicant was accompanied by one of the Bank officials who identified the said property. It is further submitted that the valuation report was submitted on 26.06.2008 and on the same day, the loan was sanctioned and the loan disbursal letter would indicate that only a certain amount was ordered to be disbursed on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the applicant. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in "L.N. Rajagopalan Vs. State" to fortify his contention that in a case where the identity of the property is disputed, the valuer cannot be vested with any criminal liability.
The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that even the valuation report would indicate that at the time of valuation of the property none of the Bank officials had accompanied the valuer.
From the material on record, I find that a complaint was given to the police by the Bank official alleging that the applicant had given a valuation report of a building whereas, the property on which the said building is said to be situated is an open plot and there is no building constructed over there. It is further noticed that the loan has been disbursed on the basis of the valuation report of the property in question submitted by the applicant.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.