3.Mr.M.Guruprasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are husband and wife and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that it is a case of non repayment of loan which has been projected as a case of cheating. He would submit that the property to an extent of 23 Acres is the ancestral property of the 2nd petitioner and pursuant to a settlement deed executed by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner, the property is now in the absolute possession of the 1st petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 28.09.2020, since the petitioners were unable to place certain important facts before this Court. He would further submit that the petitioners have taken loan of Rs.6.70 Crores by depositing their title deeds and the entire extent of the property covered under the deeds deposited is 23 acres and the value of the entire extent is more than 23 Crores. He would submit that there is a financial dispute between the petitioners and one Sunil Kumar and that based on a false information given by the said Sunil Kumar, the bank has given a complaint. Even as per the claim of the said Sunil Kumar, there is a dispute only to the extent of 86 cents and there is no dispute in respect of the remaining lands which is more than 22 acres and 14 cents and that the claim of the Sunil Kumar who is an unsecured creditor is baseless. He would further reiterate that the 2nd petitioner had acquired the properties through his ancestors and thereafter, he has executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1st petitioner by a settlement deed No.1683/2017 and after applying for loan, the bank staffs have visited the property, conducted spot inspection with their officials, measured the land along with the surveyor and after through scrutiny of the documents given by the petitioners and after obtaining legal opinion from the advocates of the bank, the loan was approved. He would submit that the petitioners have not cheated the Bank and even taking into consideration, the disputed area, the remaining properties are sufficient enough to protect the interest of the Bank.
