Anil Kumar Sinha vs State of Jharkhand And Anr

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.338 of 2018 instituted under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution story in brief is that the co-accused-Nilesh Bhardwaj contacted the petitioner who was then Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Sonari Branch, for housing loan and a loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned out of which Rs.17.50 lakhs was issued in the name of M/s ADJ Realty vide Bankers Cheque but the same was encashed by Nilesh Bhardwaj by producing himself as a proprietor of M/s ADJ Realty from Andhra Bank. It is next submitted that the co-accuse Nilesh Bhardwaj had given copy of agreement dated 16.09.2016 and allotment letter dated 14.12.2016 issued by M/s ADJ Realty along with his application before the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner sanctioned loan on 07.03.2017 for which documentation was completed on 16.03.2017 and M/s ADJ Realty is a partnership consisting of three partners but the co-accused-Nilesh Bhardwaj is not a partner of the said ADJ Realty and the co-accused-Nilesh Bhardwaj after withdrawing the said bankers cheque did not pay the loan amount of bank and when the contact was made to M/s ADJ Realty then it came to light that Rs.17.50 lakhs has not been paid to the builder rather in the name of M/s ADJ Realty an account was opened in Andhra Bank, Sakchi Branch by showing Nilesh Bhardwaj as its proprietor, in which the said bankers cheque of Rs.17.50 lakhs was encashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not ensure that loanee having claimed annual income of Rs.7.6 lakhs must submit the income tax return and PAN Card nor the petitioner verified the source of income of the loanee nor he verified the address of the loanee. It is further alleged that the petitioner sanctioned loan without making any contact with M/s ADJ Realty on the basis of forged and fabricated document of M/s ADJ Realty and the petitioner granted housing loan to Nilesh Bhardwaj and thus the petitioner has wrongly sanctioned the loan. It is then alleged that the petitioner having full knowledge and notice, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused has sanctioned the loan of amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and issued bankers cheque of Rs.17.50 lakhs and handed over it to the co-accused loanee, himself. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and there is no discrepancy in the sanction of loan amount and physical visit was carried out by the Credit Officer of Bank and Nilesh Bhardwaj is solely responsible of defrauding the bank and the petitioner has no role in the same. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view, the fact that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused person was responsible for defrauding the bank of huge amount of money, hence, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case of recovery of the huge amount of defrauded money as well as finding out the details of the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner of defrauding huge amount of money of bank and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.