Allahabad High Court
Murli Dhar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 28 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17180 of 2021 Applicant :- Murli Dhar Singh Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishnam Pandey,Amit Singh,Raj Narayan Gupta,Shikher Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, and Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, representing the respondent - CBI, and gone through the entire file.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicant, seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in R.C. No.2192017E0017, Under Sections, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I./E.O.-I, New Delhi "CBI Vs. BL Meena and others"
3. The allegation in the FIR is that M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd. constructed a multi-storied residential flats at Plot No.6, Village Dundahera, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad. The said project was approved by Punjab National Bank for sanction of housing loans to the allottees of flats in the said project. The housing loans were sanctioned to allottees from the branches of Punjab National Bank situated at Vasundhra, Vaishali, Indirapuram and Retail, District Ghaziabad. Sri Sachin Datta, Director of M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. allegedly connived with the allottees and cheated the Bank for gaining housing loans on the basis of false and fabricated documents. In the dispute more than one allotment letter for the same flats were issued, thereby induced the bank. The builder also allotted flats on 16th floor despite the fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had given approval upto 15 floor only and, thereby induced the bank to the sanctioned loans for unapproved houses and defrauded the bank with mala fide intention.
4. The investigation revealed that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, multiple housing loans for the same flat were processed and recommended by co-accused, Rajesh Bhargav and same were sanctioned by BL Meena, co-accused. The details of such 15 housing loans from Punjab National Bank, Branch Indirapuram, Ghaziabad for 7 flats in the name of different individuals under multiple financing of same flats are noted in the charge-sheet. The accused-applicant was allotted Flat No. A-305, besides Pranjal Saikia, who was also allotted the same flat. Pranjal Saikia was sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs, while the accused-applicant was anctioned loan amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Pranjal Saikia was sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs for Flat No. A-305 on 19.04.2011, whereas, the accused-applicant was sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs for Flat No. A-305 on 16.05.2013.
5. On the date of filing of the charge-sheet, the total outstanding against the accused-applicant was Rs.51,62,000/-. It is admitted that the accused-applicant had not paid even a single penny toward EMI after he was sanctioned the loan amount.
6. The investigation also revealed that multiple bogus allotment letters/agreements to sell, in respect of same flats, were fraudulently issued by builder Sachin Dutta, co-accused under his signature in criminal conspiracy with the bogus home buyers/allottees. These bogus home buyers/allottees were also part of the criminal conspiracy with the accused, Sachin Dutta inasmuch as no margin money/booking amount was paid by such bogus home buyers/allottees. However, it was falsely mentioned in bogus allotment letters that margin money/booking amount had already been paid by them to accused, builder. Such bogus allotment letters were also signed by all such bogus home buyers/allottees in addition to accused, Sachin Dutta. Thus, the accused-applicant, knowing fully well, that he had not paid even a single penny as margin money/booking amount to the builder, falsely got the loan amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs sanctioned and misappropriated the same.
7. Considering the allegations and the evidence available against the accused-applicant, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarged the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail.
8. REJECTED.
[D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 28.2.2023 MVS/-