Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1964 (JHR)

Azaz Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-16

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - Since all the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 8(S)2015-EOW-R, for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C on the basis of complaint lodged by Sri R.J. Shankara, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office Sainik Bazar, Main Road, Ranchi alleging therein that he is authorized by the Bank to lodge present complaint against the borrower namely Sri Mohd Shadab Khan, proprietor of M/s. M.K. Engineering Work, guarantors Namely Sri Mohd Azaz Khan (A.B.A. No. 1416 of 2017) and Sri Mohd Shahid Khan who have conspired to each other and got the loan sanctioned from Jamshedpur Main Branch by depositing the fake and forged title deeds at the time of sanction of loan. 3. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Sri Mohd Shadab Khan got cash credit limit sanction of the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on dated 20/21.03.2017 and subsequently enhanced upto Rs. 6,00,000,00/-. Similarly he also got sanction of Tem Loan of Rs. 87,00,000/- on 20/21.03.2017 and subsequently enhanced upto Rs. 80,34,7000/- on dated 28.12.2012. Mohd Azas Khan (guarantor) offered the bank to mortgage his land as collateral security details of which has been given in the written report. It is further alleged that Mohd Sahid Khan, who is brother and proprietor of another firm M/s. Temcon, since the borrower has committed default of loan amount CTL +CC as such the account was declared as N.P.A on 02.11.2013. Thereafter bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and moved an application under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for physical possession of the mortgaged property. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner got an enquiry conducted with respect to the mortgaged property from Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, who accordingly submitted his report stating that by committing forgery the land has been mortgaged with the bank and thereafter Deputy Commissioner vide letter as contained in Memo 1115 (B) dated 27.08.2015 directed the bank to lodge an F.I.R against the person concerned. 4. 4. It is further alleged that the bank also got an investigation conducted through their empannelled advocate with regard to mortgaged property and accordingly vide letters dated 13.11.2015 and 06.11.2015 reported that the mortgagor has not title over the property. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged. A.B.A. No. 1416 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Azaz Khan is innocent and he has committed no offence. The petitioner is a guarantor of the said loan amount being borrowed by the Principal borrower Mr. Shadab Khan, the proprietor of M/s. M.K. Engineering Works firm, he cannot be held responsible for any criminal liability. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner during course of investigation fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. The petitioner is aged about 60 years. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that during course of investigation, C.B.I has collected material that the petitioner Azaz Khan in compliance of sanction conditions, submitted and affidavit sworn before the Notary, Shri Dinesh Narayan Singh of District Court, Jamshedpur that he is the owner of Plot No. 1131 at Khata No. 528, measuring 0.25 hectare in Mauza Dinna at Mango, Jamshedpur. From the investigation into the office of Sub-Registrar, Chaibsasa disclosed that the title of sale deed is not in the name of accused Azaz Khan. A.B. A. No. 1650 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Bagty is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is only practicing lawyer and allegation against him is that he has given false legal opinion in terms of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. A.B. A. No. 1650 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Bagty is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is only practicing lawyer and allegation against him is that he has given false legal opinion in terms of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is an Advocate in Civil Court, Jamshedpur and he has given false legal opinion regarding C.N.T. Act on the basis which loan was sanctioned. A.B. A. No. 1665 of 2017 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is not named in F.I.R and his is practising lawyer. It is further submitted that only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has given legal opinion in respect of Title Deed of the land vide Deed No. 3624 dated 11.07.2008 and Sale deed No. 3107 dated 06.05.87 of Khata No. 528, plot No. 1131 area 25.400 hectares. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when his presence is required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 10. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when his presence is required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 10. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is an Advocate in Civil Court, Jamshedpur and he has given false legal opinion on the basis of which loan was sanctioned. A.B. A. No. 1824 of 2017 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Ranjan is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is practising lawyer. It is further submitted that only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has given false legal opinion except this there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is a party to the alleged conspiracy. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, investigation is complete, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 12. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is an impanneled lawyer of UCO Bank pursuant to the official conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly furnished the legal opinion in respect of title deeds of the land aforesaid and also furnished non-encumbrance certificates to facilitate sanction of fresh loans. The title deeds, mutation order and rent receipt of the land mortgaged for their purported additional values have already been proved fake. A.B. A. No. 2125 of 2017 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. The title deeds, mutation order and rent receipt of the land mortgaged for their purported additional values have already been proved fake. A.B. A. No. 2125 of 2017 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Subhasish Sinha is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is only an employee of M.K. Engineering Works, Jamshedpur and main allegation is against the accused Md. Shadab Khan. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, investigation is complete, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 14. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner and accused Suresh pandey both admitted to have opened accounts aforesaid at the behest of his employer accused Shadab Khan and accused Shahid Khan under duress but denied to have supplied any material to the borrowing firm. The payments of the loan proceeds were subsequently withdrawn through cheques under their signatures were delivered by accused Shahid Khan and thus the entire proceeds of Third Term Loan of Rs. 750 lacs were also cheated by the accused borrowers and guarantors. A.B. A. No. 2187 of 2017 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Kartik Lal is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is only an employee of M.K. Engineering Works, Jamshedpur and main allegation is against the accused Md. Shadab Khan. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Shadab Khan. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation C.B.I has submitted final form on 29.12.2016 under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C and under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, investigation is complete, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 16. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner along with others as an employee of M/s. M.K. Engineering Works during the period and he admitted to have operated the account for and on behalf of the co-accused Shahid Khan on most of the occasions and also some times at the instruction of co-accused Shadab Khan under duress. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioners and also the fact that final form has been submitted in this case, trial will take some time, during investigation these petitioners cooperated in the investigation and they were never arrested by the I.O, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below latest by 11.12.2017 and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand)each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Sri B.K. Tiwary, learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 8(S)2015EOWR, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C , 1973and also subject to further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi district. The petitioner Mr. Azaz Khan (A.B.A. No. 1416 of 2017) is directed to deposit cost of Rs. The petitioner Mr. Azaz Khan (A.B.A. No. 1416 of 2017) is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 21,000/- before the Secretary/President, District Bar Association, Civil Court, Jamshedpur latest by 04.12.2017 and submit receipt of deposition of aforesaid amount before the trial court on the date of his surrender and the aforesaid amount will be used for welfare of the learned members of the District Bar Association, Civil Court, Jamshedpur. Further, the petitioners shall fully cooperate with the CBI and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial court till framing of charge, failing which the trial court will cancel the bail of the petitioners. If they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. The petitioners shall deposit their pass port (if any) before the trial court. 18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I.