Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 435 (MP)

Sugamlata (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2011-04-06

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 438/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Manager of the Central Bank of India lodged a report to Police Station Maharajpura that Smt. Preeti Singh and Ajay Pratap Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 20.00 Lacs and applicant Smt. Sugamlata being a guarantor had mortgaged the disputed house bearing No.B-67, situated at Samadhiya Colony, Gwalior. It is further alleged that on non-payment of the said amount, notices have been issued to borrowers and guarantor and the property has been attached under Section 13(4) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Information of Security Interest Adhiniyam, 2002, which was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar". After publication various Banks informed to the complainant that the same property has been mortgaged with their Banks and accused persons intentionally cheated with the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Central Bank of India sanctioned the loan after verifying the facts on the basis of a Search Report in the year 2007 and the original documents were deposited in the Bank. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady of 67 years old and she is the guarantor of the loan. In the event of her arrest, her reputation will be tarnished, therefore she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the applicant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr. P. C. 6. This order shall remain in force for a period of 30 days. In the meantime, if the applicant so desires, she may apply for regular bail before the compentent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law. Certified copies as per rules.