Satish Pandita vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others

The applicant seeks grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest in FIR No. 37/2016 for offences under sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

RPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. It is submitted that the applicant is only a guarantor in two loans obtained by the prime

accused-Sandeep Singh from the different branches of the J&K Bank.

Allegations alleged by the complainant-Ramesh Chander, Executive Manager, S&C Division J&K Bank are that one S. Sandeep Singh S/o Tara

Singh R/o W. No. 8, Dollian, Bari Brahmana has managed to avail multiple loan facilities from different accounts by forging his residential address in

his family ration card obtained loan from various J&K Bank Branches in connivance with Som Nath, Bodh Raj, Anjali Boushal and S. Amandeep

Singh, who stood guarantor of loan in four branches and the applicant, who had given guarantee in two branches. Accused Sandeep Singh and Bodh

Raj are both enlarged on bail.

Applicant submits that he had provided guarantee to Sandeep Singh in good faith, but due to his action has resulted an FIR. This FIR was registered

four years back. The accused Sandeep Singh and Bodh Raj both have been enlarged on bail. He moved an application for grant of bail but learned

trial court has dismissed the same without appreciating the facts that he has not committed any common offence.

Respondents have submitted their status report and submitted that his application for bail stands rejected by the District Judge on the ground that the

accused is required for custodial interrogation. Learned counsel for the applicant however, submits that applicant has along with other only given

guarantee of loan in good faith for S. Sandeep Singh. Since the aforementioned FIR was registered in the year 2016, therefore, at this stage,

applicant‟s arrest will not serve any purpose as the S. Sandeep Singh is the main accused. S. Sandeep Singh and Bodh Raj have been enlarged to bail

and applicant who is only a guarantor is facing arrest. The culpability of offence is yet to be adjudicated upon at the time of trial.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court also in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v State of Gujarat and another, 2016(1) SCC (Cri) 240, has held in paragraph No. 20

that:

„…….31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from

some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in

the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking

advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not

necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation

appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are

several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting

anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a

reasonable possibility of the applicant‟s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and

“the larger interests of the public or the State†are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application

for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622

: (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of

paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes

of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on

his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be

enlarged on bail.â€​

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without commenting about the merit of the case at this stage, this application is

allowed.

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he is directed to be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety of Rs. 25,000/ each to

the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Police Officer on the condition that he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not tamper with the

prosecution witnesses and abide by condition as specified in 438(2) Cr. P. C.

This application is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected application.