Allowed

Subasish Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through CBI

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2018A.B.A./2202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing allegations of selling forged property deeds and cheating to a bank. The court imposed a cost deposit and directed surrender within six days, allowing enlargement of bail upon furnishing bonds subject to trial court conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of court costs, surrender before 13.08.2018, and furnishing of bail bonds with sureties to the Special Judge, CBI.

Subasish Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2062 of 2018

¶2

Md. Azaz Khan ….. Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 2202 of 2018

¶4

Subhashish Sinha ….. Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶6

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶7

--------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. For the State (CBI) : Mrs. Neetu Sinha, J.C. to ASGI.

¶8

¶9

05/Dated: 18/07/2018

¶10

Since both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of same F.I.R., therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

¶11

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. 01 (S) / 2016-EOW-R, for the offence initially registered under Section 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. on the basis of complaint lodged by Sri. R.J. Shnkara, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal office, Sainik Bazar, Main Road, Ranchi. It is alleged in the complaint that borrower namely Md. Shahid Khan, Proprietor of M/s Temcon, Md. Azaz Khan and Md. Shadab Khan who have conspired to each other and got the loan sanctioned by depositing the fake and forged title deeds at the time of sanction of loan. It is further alleged that in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy, Md. Shahid Khan got Cash Credit Limit sanction to the tune of Rs. 50 lakh and subsequently enhanced up to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- on 29.6.13. Similarly, he also got sanction Term Loan of Rs. 85,00,000/- in the year 2007 and subsequently enhanced up to 2,70,00,000/on 29.6.13. Md. Azaz Khan, guarantor offered the bank to mortgage his land as collateral security and Md. Shadab Khan who is brother of the borrower and proprietor of another firm namely M/s M.K. Engineering Works has given his personal guarantee. It is further alleged that since the borrower has committed default in repayment of loan amount as such the account was declared as NPA on 2.11.13. Thereafter bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and moved an application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for

¶12

-2-

¶13

physical possession of the mortgaged property. Thereafter the D.C. got enquiry conducted with respect to the mortgaged property. Thereafter, the D.C. got enquiry conducted with respect to the mortgaged property from Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, who accordingly submitted his report stating that by committing forgery, the land has been mortgaged with the bank and thereafter D.C. vide letter as contained in memo 1115(B)/Vidhi dated 27.8.15 directed the bank to lodge an F.I.R. against the person concern. It is further alleged that the bank also got an investigation conducted through his empanelled advocate with regard to mortgage property and accordingly vide letter dated 13.11.15 reported that the mortgage has no title over the property. The present outstanding in the account is Rs. 4,28,36,894/- which is exclusive of interest from 1.11.13. The account became Non Performing Asset in bank books with effect from 2.11.13 and it is requested to take suitable action against the accused persons. Thereafter this case was registered under Section 120B r/w 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the accused persons namely M/s Temcon represented by Md. Shahid Khan, Proprietor, Md. Azaz Khan and Md. Shadab Khan. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case was instituted.

¶14

A.B.A. No. 2062 of 2018

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner – Mr. Azaz Khan is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is a guarantor of the said loan amount being borrowed by the Principal borrower Mr. Shadab Khan, the proprietor of M/s M.K. Engineering Works firm, he cannot be held responsible for any criminal liability. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation CBI has submitted final form on 30.09.2016 under Sections 120B r/ 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the CBI and he has appeared before the CBI as and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, investigation is complete, trial will take some time. The petitioner is aged about 60 years. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

-3-

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioner has extended the fake and forged sale deed no. 3624 dated 11.07.1985 from M/s M K. Engineering Works as collateral security to the bank at the time of initial sanction, title of which was not in his favour. Petitioner has also extended the fake and forged sale deed no. 2107 dated 06.05.1987 as additional collateral security to the bank at the time of additional sanction of Term Loan and enhancement of limit, title of which was not in his favour and petitioner has also opened account of fake firm in the name of fake firms M/s R. Steel and M/s TML Traders in Canara Bank, Mango, Jamshedpur and in conspiracy with the borrower and others fraudulently and dishonestly received Term loan as well as loan money from Cash Credit limit.

¶18

A.B.A. No. 2202 of 2018

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner – Mr. Subhashish Sinha is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that as composite loan of Rs. 15,18,37,733/- was taken by M/s M.K. Engineering works by its proprietor Sahdab Khan and original sale deeds deposited by Sahdab Khan as security for the said loan. Hence, the entire liability goes against Sahdab Khan not against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was only the employee of in the company and nothing else. Further, it has been submitted that after completion of investigation CBI has submitted final form on 30.09.2016 under Sections 120B r/ 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the CBI and he has appeared before the CBI as and when his presence was required and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, investigation is complete, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner has facilitated the accused borrower in

¶21

-4-

¶22

misappropriating the loan amount by opening account in Canara Bank in the name of fake firm M/s Bokaro Steel and given blank singed cheques to the accused borrower.

¶23

Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail with imposition of cost of Rs. 21,000/- upon the petitioner – Md. Azaz Khan and Rs. 8,000/- upon the petitioner Subhashish Sinha to be deposited before the President / Secretary, District Bar Association, Ranchi latest by 06.08.2018. On deposition of amount by the petitioners, the President / Secretary will issue receipt to them. The amount will be utilized only for the welfare of learned Members of Bar Association, Ranchi. The above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below on or before 13.08.2018 and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. 01 (S) / 2016-EOWR, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and further on the date of surrender, petitioners shall file the receipts of the aforesaid depositions. Further, the petitioners shall fully cooperate with the CBI and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial court till framing of the charge, failing which the trial court will cancel the bail of the petitioners. If they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from the trial court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall deposit their passport, if any before the trial court.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as a copy of this order be handed over to the learned ASGI, who is appearing for the CBI and also communicated to the President / Secretary, District Bar Association, Ranchi.

¶25

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶26

Sunil/

Subasish Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subasish Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ejaj Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangal Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshwar Chaudhary And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahadev Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sukanto Das Alias Sukanta Das Alias Gunda Vs the State of Jharkhand