Allowed

Anil Kumar Jain v. C.B.I. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/575/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused in a fraud case involving loan misappropriation. The court noted that co-accused have been granted bail and the charge sheet is filed, justifying the applicant's release on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Accused Anil Kumar Jain granted anticipatory bail directed to appear before trial court within seven days to furnish personal bond and two sureties.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs C.B.I. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 575 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- C.B.I. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kr. Soni,Gaurav Dwivedi,Pankaj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in Special Case No.03 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.RC-2192017E0017, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and substantive Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- C.B.I./EO-1, District New Delhi.

¶7

One Balaji Builders launched a project for construction of 171 flats in Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad in the year 2010. The accused applicant was allotted a flat No.B1005 in the said project, which was called as Foster Height. Accused-applicant and son had obtained loan of Rs.31 Lakh from Punjab National Bank in respect of under constructed Flat No.B-1005 in Foster Height. It is alleged that the said loan amount was sanctioned on the ground of forged receipt of Rs.6 lakh submitted by the accused-applicant and his son to the builder, however, no amount was paid by the accused-applicant to the builder. The builder did not construct the flat and the loan amount was misappropriated in criminal conspiracy of the accused applicant, his son and builder.

¶8

Earlier the accused-applicant filed a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court challenging the charge sheet. An interim order was granted in the said petition. However, as interim order was not extended and as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. and other vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , the trial proceedings cannot be held up beyond six months unless the interim order is extended by a reasoned order. The accused applicant and his son were not appearing in the court, the trial court issued non-bailable warrant against them. Rachit Jain, son of the accused applicant was arrested and he has been enlarged on regular bail by the trial court. Thereafter, the interim order was extended, however, the 482 Cr.PC. application of accused applicant has been rejected and the said application is dismissed today as not pressed.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant had already deposited Rs.12.21 lakh in the Bank in respect of the said loan which was sanctioned by the Bank, however, when he saw no progress made by the builder, he stopped making payment of EMI. One Sri Nitin Mehta was sanctioned loan against the very same flat by the bank, who did not pay any single amount and in fact, entire money was misappropriated. The said Nitin Mehta has been granted interim bail by this Court vide the order dated 23.12.2021. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that charge sheet has already been filed and no purpose would be served in keeping the accused applicant in jail and inasmuch as, several others co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail or regular bail by

¶10

this Court. He submits that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if he is enlarged on bail by this Court and shall cooperate in the trial.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused applicant had been involved throughout in committing the fraud with the bank and as a result of fraud in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, the bank has suffered huge losses. However, the counsel for the CBI is not in a position to deny the fact that the accused-applicant had paid the EMI in respect of bank for four years and had paid Rs.12.21 Lakh to the bank.

¶12

Considering the fact that some of the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory/ regular bail and charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the view that the accused- applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Thus, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-applicant- Anil Kumar Jain shall appear before the trial Court within seven days from today and furnish a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. On furnishing personal bond and sureties, the accused applicant- Anil Kumar Jain shall be admitted on bail in Case Crime No.RC-2192017E0017, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and substantive Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- C.B.I./EO-1, District New Delhi. The trial court shall stipulate the terms and conditions for enlarging the

¶14

applicant on bail as he may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 A.Kr.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Jain v. C.B.I. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Jain v. C.B.I. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bhushan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Tirth Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P.

State of Up Vs Mukhtar Ansari S/o Subhan Ullah Ansari

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.