Ajay @ Pappu Jaiswal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is Third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.261/2018 registered at Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur for the offence under Sections 420, 421, 467, 468, 294, 506 and 120-B/34 of IPC.

As per prosecution, co-accused Smt. Usha Jaiswal, wife of applicant Ajay @ Pappu Jaiswal obtained joint home loan for purchasing a house. It is alleged that the said co-accused persons had obtained a forged registered sale-deed and applied for loan. Immediately after obtaining the loan, the co-accused persons have made defaults to pay the installments, therefore, the Kotak Mahindra Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the co-accused. When the Bank initiated the recovery proceedings it came to the knowledge of the Bank that the property which has been mortgaged by the co-accused persons belongs to one Nasheer Mohammad Qureshi. Hence, a written complaint was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur and on the basis of the order passed by the learned JMFC, the aforesaid offence has been registered against co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence. On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant.

It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2018 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person of 45 years and has not committed any fraud. The documents which are said to be forged have been submitted by co-accused persons and not by the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.3.25,000/- in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank, but deposition of the said amount may not be treated as the offence has been committed by the applicant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-Bank has submitted that Rs.3.25,000/- be deposited in favour of the bank by way of demand draft and the bank is ready to give the undertaking if the bank does not succeed in the case, the Bank will return the same. Considering the aforesaid and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and if the applicant deposits Rs.3.25,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour the Kotak Mahindra Bank, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed, with the direction that if the trial Court or any of the appellate Court will hold that money is not recoverable from the applicant, then the said amount will be refundable to the applicant.

It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the committal/trial Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C.

C.c. as per rules.