AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 363 wordsH.C. Mishra
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, who has appeared upon notice.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 1877 of 2010.
From the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant had received a loan of rupees ten lakhs from the Bank and it is also alleged by the complainant that by mortgaging the title deeds of the complainant, the petitioner had obtained another loan of rupees twenty lakhs, which was not being repaid by him. When the complainant received a notice being the Guarantor, the said complaint petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant had also sworn an affidavit to show that he had been the Guarantor of the petitioner, as is apparent from the order dated 7.7.2011 passed in A.B.P. No. 551 of 201, whereby co-accused Jogendra Singh, who was the Branch Manager of the Bank, was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that by mortgaging the title deeds of the complainant, the petitioner had obtained a Bank loan of rupees twenty lakhs, which was not even known to the complainant.
In the facts of tin''s case, particularly, in view of the fact that other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail and taking into consideration the affidavit sworn by the complainant, as is apparent from the order dated 7.7.2011 passed in A.B.P. No. 551 of 201, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten-thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Styapal, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh or his suceessor, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1877 of 2010.