The Gauhati High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an empanelled valuer accused of negligence and fraud in a bank recovery case. The Court held the matter was not a fit case for bail as custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010117302023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1914/2023
SANTOSH KR CHAKRAVARTY S/O LATE GANGA NATH SHASHTRI R/O UPPER HENGRABARI, NEAR NABAJYOTI CLUB, HOUSE NO. 676A, P.O. HENGRABARI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
08/06/2023
Heard Mr. P K Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
The petitioner, namely, Santosh Kr. Chakravarty , has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 05/2022 registered under Sections 120B/420/406/409 IPC.
Perused the case diary placed before the Court today by Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
One Fidusur Rahman, Proprietor of M/S. NAF NE Industries availed a loan of Rs.1.98 Crore on 26.08.2011 from the Mahavir Market Branch of the Punjab National Bank and one Arifur Rahman stood as the guarantor by signing and executing a guarantee agreement by creating an equitable mortgage of his land and building, measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas under Dag No. 137 (Old)/1656 (New) of K.P. Patta No. 25 (Old)/66 (New) at Village and Mouza-Ulubari, District-Kamrup (M). Said loan account was classified as NPA as on 31.03.2013 and the Bank initiated a recovery proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing mandatory notice. During such recovery proceeding, one Anowaruddin Wakf Estate appeared before the DRT, Guwahati and claimed the said immovable property. The DRT, Guwahati passed a judgment on 15.07.2016 and after the said judgment on the basis of the FIR of the case, BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 05/2022 has been registered.
Case diary reveals that it is because of the petitioner, the empanelled Valuer of the Bank and one Mr. Dhiraj Baruah, empanelled lawyer, who did not properly verified the land and on the basis of a fake Sale Deed No. 2076 dated 24.04.1993 executed by one Bipin Dey in favour of Arifur Rahman, the petitioner gave its report regarding the value of the said land.
The note of the Investigating Officer placed before the Court reveals that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as the investigation could not proceed further as the petitioner and the other accused persons of the case are evading arrest.
Matter relates to huge amount of money.
Page No.# 3/3
Considering the above and the report of the I/O placed before the Court dated 07.06.2023, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Santosh Kr. Chakravarty in said BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 05/2022.
Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, Santosh Kr. Chakravarty in said BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 05/2022 stands rejected.
Return the case diary herewith.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to an empanelled valuer facing allegations of negligence and fraud in a banking recovery case involving huge amounts.
Whether the case qualifies as a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the Investigating Officer's view that custodial interrogation is required.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANTOSH KR CHAKRAVARTY
THE STATE OF ASSAM
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
