Satish Kumar Kapoor vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of all the aforementioned six petitions, filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 39, dated 4.5.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that they connived with each other to cause wrongful loss to Punjab National Bank, Tibbi Khurd Branch, District Ferozepur. Petitioner-accused -Satish Kumar Kapoor was posted as Bank Manager in the said bank at a relevant time. Petitioner-accused Vijay Kumar Patwari was Halqa Patwari and the other petitioners-accused had taken loan from the bank by giving forged jamabandis, as a security. Each of the borrower had taken about Rs. 1 lac as a loan from the bank. The land belonged to the Central Government. The same was illegally shown to be possessed by the private petitioners-accused by co-accused Vijay Kumar Patwari, and on the basis of said forged jamabandis, the loan was sanctioned by petitioner-accused -Satish Kumar Kapoor and hence there is embezzlement of about Rs. 20 lacs of the money belonging to the bank. None of the private petitioners-accused has made any payment as repayment of the loan to the bank. Not even a single installment of loan has been paid by them.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused Satish Kumar Kapoor, Manager, that he had sanctioned the loan after taking legal opinion from the lawyer of the bank and that when he come to know that the petitioners are not in possession of the land, he had also made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for verification of the said fact.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner-Vijay Kumar Patwari, that none of the jamabandis was issued by him and that the same might have been forged by the private respondents themselves.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the private respondents except petitioner-accused Sulakhan Singh that in fact a fraud was committed upon them by Sulakhan Singh and that petitioner No. 2- Veer Singh in petition bearing Crl.M. No. M-17629 of 2010, had filed a complaint against Sulakhan Singh before registration of the present FIR.

On the other hand, it has been contended by learned State counsel-respondents that all the petitioners-accused connived with each other in order to cause loss to the bank and that to arrive at truth, custodial interrogation of the petitioners-accused is necessary.

There are serious allegations against the petitioners-accused. A huge amount of public money has gone from the bank on the basis of forged jamabandis and nothing has been recovered. There are allegations that all the petitioners-accused including the bank Manager had connived with each other and caused loss to the bank. Hence, it is a fit case in which custodial interrogation of the petitioners-accused is necessary.

It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused.

Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Satish Kumar Kapoor, Surjit Singh, Vijay Kumar Patwari, Channa Singh, Sona Singh, Mangal Singh, Veer Singh, Kashmir Singh, Jangir Singh, Balbir Singh, Balwinder Singh, Mohinder Singh, Lachhman Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Surjit Singh and Sulakhan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Babu Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Interim order of bail already granted in favour of the petitioners stand vacated.