Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 826 (JHR)

Madan Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-03

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has given sufficient opportunity to file counter affidavit but he failed to file any counter affidavit controverting the facts relied upon by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 344 of 2021 instituted under Sections 468/471/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. As per F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Maa Basuli, availed cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- by depositing certified copy of sale deed No. 1144/1120 dated 18.03.2023 as equitable mortgage with the bank. It is further alleged that the said accused has not operated the aforesaid cash credit facility and the aforesaid loan facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been declared NPA and outstanding amount credit facilities became Rs. 1,12,43,598.54/- including interest w.e.f. 30.06.2021. It is further alleged that on verification, it was found that the accused has sold and transferred the mortgage property by virtue of registered sale deed no. 1611/1587 on 02.06.2014 and accordingly the informant-bank demanded Rs. 1,12,43,598.54/- but the petitioner did not pay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cash credit account of the petitioner was declared NPA on 30.06.2015 and the Bank moved to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Ranch vide O. A. No. 164 of 2016 for the recovery of Rs. 45,60,888.54/- along with interest and cost and pursuant to the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, the Bank had already taken possession of the immoveable assets of the petitioner’s firm under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and under Rule 8(6) and (9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule 2002 and has already published an E-Auction Notice in the daily newspaper for the sale of the immoveable assets of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no case under Section 406/467/468/471/406 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted sale deed as security which is purportedly relied by the Bank. It is further submitted that no case under Section 406/467/468/471/406 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted sale deed as security which is purportedly relied by the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Spl.P.P as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 344 of 2021 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In case of violation of terms and conditions, the I.O. of this case may pray for cancellation of bail of the petitioner before the concerned court.