Allowed

B v. Subramnyam v the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ranchi

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2018A.B.A./2596/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a corporate officer accused of conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in a bank loan fraud case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within four weeks, bail bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, and conditions of physical appearance, passport deposit, and non-influence of witnesses.

B v Subramnyam Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ranchi — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2596 of 2018

¶2

B.V. Subramanyam …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the C.B.I : J.C to Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I ---------

¶3

04/Dated: 02/08/2018

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶5

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶6

The prosecution case is that a written complaint of Shri Vimal Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bagroy Marketm Main Road, Ranchi alleging that a criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery committed by M/s A.K. Engineering represented by its partners Viz. Mr. Sahid Khan and Mr. Jawed Khan alongwith its guarantors namely, Mr. Shahdab Khan, Mr. Azaz Khan, Mr. Siraj Khan at Punjab National Bank, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur. M/s A.K. Engineering, which is engaged in fabrication and machining job sanctioned loan facilities comprising CC limit of Rs. 6 crores and term loan of Rs. 4 crores, totaling Rs. 10 crores by PNB, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur on 31.03.2011 on the basis of fake and fabricated collateral sureties in the form of sale deeds bearing No. 3963 dated 22.07.2010 (executed between Mr. Shadab Khan, seller and Mr. Azaz Khan, purchaser) and 393 dated 20.01.2011 (executed between Mr. Shadab Khan seller and Sahid Khan purchaser), both registered by Sub Registrar, Seraikella Kharsawan. The value of the properties mortgaged was tampered with an alteration from Rs. 2,87,688/- to Rs. 2,87,66,800/- in case of sale deed No. 3963 and from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 28 crores in case of sale deed No. 393. It is also alleged that M/s A.K. Engineering represented by its partners Shri Sahid Khan and Shri Jawed Khan guarantors Viz. Shri Shahdab Khan, Azaz Khan and Siraj Khan hatched the criminal conspiracy and dishonestly and fraudulently siphoned of the loan amount and cheated the Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs. 10 crores and caused wrongful gain to themselves and corresponding wrongful loss to the bank, hence this case has been lodged.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and committed no offence whatsoever alleged and further submitted that the petitioner has framed in this case without any fault and he discharged his duty diligently and honestly and in the best interest of the bank without any comprising and there is no evidence of conspiracy between the petitioner and co-accused borrower. It is also submitted that loan account

¶8

were processed earlier and that too after obtaining legal opinion from the concerned Advocate of the bank who pointed categorically there is mutated in the name of seller and purchaser and prior to forwarding loan application, this petitioner being a Manager (Credit) has verified the sale deed and made certain objections regarding both the deeds and he physically verified both the deeds through the District Sub-Registrar on 26.04.2011 and after that he submitted a report to the Chief Manager vide letter dated 29.04.2011, where he categorically reported in sale deed No. 393 last page of the deed i.e. fees details are missing from the deed and in sale deed No. 396 dated 23.07.2010 one page is not signed and there is some correction in the page called search cum declaration which is a computerized print attached to the deed which was not signed by the seller also and the plot number at the same time was corrected with pen. It is also submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶9

Learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard the learned for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioner, during investigation, the petitioner co-operated in the investigation and he was never arrested by the I.O, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C. No. 06(S)/2015-EOW-R, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also subject to the further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi District. Further, the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the C.B.I and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial Court till framing of charge, failing which the trial Court will cancel the bail of the petitioner. If he wants exemption from appearance, he will inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from Special Court, he may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witness during trial. The petitioner shall deposit his passport (if any) before the Special Court.

¶10

Let a copy of the order be communicated to the trial Court as well as a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I.

¶11

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶12

Satayendra/

B v. Subramnyam v the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B v. Subramnyam v the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ranchi

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

Samrendra Kumar Mohanty Alias Samrender Kumar Mohanty Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saryu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheo Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhnad

Robin Poul Alias Robin Paul Alias Robin Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bholeshwar Mahto Alias Bhuleshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand