MCRC/52912/2020 of MOHAMMAD TUFAIL Vs STATE OF M.P. on 31 December 2020

M.Cr.C. Nos.52100/2020, 52095/2020, 52276/2020, 52719/2020, 52912/2020, 52994/20201The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh -Indore : 31/12/2020 :

Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through videoconferencing.O R D E RThis is second repeat application filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as he/she apprehends his/herarrest in connection with Crime No.149/2020 registered atPolice Station-Malhargarh, District-Mandsaur for the offencepunishable under Sections 420, 409 & 120-B of the IPC. Thefirst application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10/11/2020 inM.Cr.C.Nos.42073/2020,41808/2020,41912/2020,41852/2020, 41898/2020 and 42314/2020 respectively.

2. As per the prosecution case, the Bank Manager ofMalhargarh Branch of Canara Bank made a written complaint tothe Police alleging that from 2016 to 2018, 409 gold loans weresanctioned by the then Bank Managers and out of 409 cases, in87 cases the gold loans were sanctioned by mortgaging thefake gold ornaments. At the time of giving loan, thegenuineness of the gold was got verified by Rajesh Soni, thelocal goldsmith and on the basis of his report, loans weresanctioned. Later on, the Bank got verified the mortgaged goldand found that in all 87 loan cases the gold is fake, hence theFIR be registered. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the

Police registered the FIR against 49 accused including RajeshSoni and the then Manager of Canara Bank.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that theapplicant has not committed any offence and he/she has beenfalsely implicated in the case. He/she never took loan from thecomplainant bank. In fact, Rajesh Soni, who is an OfficialValuer of the Bank has obtained the signature of the presentapplicant on some blank papers and took a loan by mortgagingfake gold ornaments in the Bank. He/she has committed similartype of offence in as many as 87 loan cases. The investigationis complete and Challan has been filed. The applicant had noknowledge about the aforesaid loan, hence prays for grant ofanticipatory bail in the matter.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes theprayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that applicantdid sign the loan papers and took the loan, now he/she cannotallege that Rajesh Soni took loan in his/her name. Still he/sheis liable to repay the loan amount to the Bank, which is publicmoney. If he/she is willing to deposit the loan amount to theBank, the Court may consider his/her bail application.

5. I have perused the case-diary.

6. So far the defence taken by the counsel for the applicantis concerned, it is a matter of trial and there are as many as 87cases registered against the co-accused Rajesh Soni of similarnature and the trial may take time to conclude. However, primafacie the loan was taken in the name of applicant, hence,he/she is liable to repay the same. If the applicant deposits theloan amount, he/she can be released on anticipatory bail.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted thatthe entire loan amount was repaid by the applicant to the Bankon 05/12/2020. 05/12/2020, 02/12/2020, 05/12/2020,04/12/2020 and 05/12/2020 respectively.

8. This Court would have directed the applicant to surrenderbefore the Court and apply for regular bail, however, looking tothe Corona Epidemic, this Court deems it fit to extend thebenefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he/she hasalready repaid the loan amount to the Bank.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the factthat the applicant has already repaid the loan amount, withoutcommenting on the merit of the case, the application isallowed subject to condition that before releasing theapplicant, the Investigating Officer shall verify the documentsregarding re-payment of loan and if he found that the amounthas been deposited with the Bank, then, this anticipatory bailorder is applicable and in case he found that amount has notbeen deposited in the Bank by the applicant, then, he/she isnot entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

10. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant inconnection with the aforesaid crime number, he/she bereleased on bail upon his/her furnishing a personal bond in thesum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), withone solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer. This order shall be governed by thefollowing conditions:

Aiyer*

4

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigationand make himself/herself available for interrogation bya Police Officer as and when required; (b) he/she shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuadehim/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or toany Police Officer;

(c) he/she shall not leave the Territory of India withoutthe prior permission of the Court.

C.C.as per rules

(Vivek Rusia)

Vacation Judge

Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2020.12.31 15:31:45 +05'30'