In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in a fraud case, the Gauhati High Court rejected the petitioner's plea. The court found the petitioner complicit in arranging forged documents for agricultural loans, deeming it not a fit case for pre-arrest bail.
Bail prayer rejected and interim bail order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010116292021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2253/2021
SHANTANU BORAH SON OF SRI RAM BORAH R/O NIZ KODAMONI, BOIRAGIMATH P.O. AND P.S. DIBRUGARH PIN-7816001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P R MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER
10.11.2021
By this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, petitioner, namely, Sri Shantanu Borah, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Tingkhong PS Case No. 110/2017, under Sections 468/420/471 of the IPC (as amended)
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
I have also perused the record and the Case Diary.
Page No.# 2/2
Submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor he is involved in the offence. Although the petitioner earlier worked in Indusind Bank, Axis Bank, etc., but he is no more an employee of the aforesaid Bank.
An FIR was lodged by the Circle Officer, Tingkhong Revenue Circle, that 7 persons named in the FIR intended to obtain agricultural loan from the ICICI Bank, by filing various fake documents, pertaining to the land like valuation certificate, Jamabandi copies, NOC, revenue receipts etc. etc. The bank officials sent those documents for examining the authenticity, to the Circle Office and on examination of those documents, all are found to be fake and forged. Hence, the FIR.
From the statements of various witnesses that have been examined during the course of investigation, it transpires that although the present petitioner is not an employee of the said bank at the time, when the loan applications were made, but it reveals that he associated himself with certain section of persons, amongst the loan applicants and contacted them over phone and the petitioner helped the loan applicants to arrange the forged documents to avail the loan from the Bank, on the basis of such documents.
Serious complicity of the petitioner is made out against the entire transaction of loan fraudulently, as alleged in the FIR.
Considering all entirety of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest to the accused petitioner and accordingly, his bail prayer is rejected. The interim bail order dated 09.08.2021, stands vacated.
The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.
Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner in a fraud case involving loan application forgery.
Whether the petitioner's alleged role in arranging fake documents for loan applications warrants the refusal of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shantanu Borah
State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
