Back
2023 Supreme(J&K) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Mohammad Akbar Bhat & Others - Appellant
Versus
UT Of J&K & Another – Respondent
Bail App No.111 of 2023
Decided on : 13-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Azeem, Rasic, Advocate, with Mr. Tariq-ul-Islam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA.
Grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences may hamper effective investigation and is not warranted if the accusations have the potential to disturb the financial health of banking institutions.
Headnote:
Bail - Economic Offences - IPC 420, 467, 468, 471 - [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Report (SC) 825, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail in anticipation of arrest in a case involving allegations of deceiving a bank to provide loan facility on the basis of forged and fake revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the serious allegations against the petitioners in respect of economic offences, which have the potential of disturbing the financial health of banking institutions, did not warrant indulgence under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in anticipation of arrest in a case involving economic offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and the potential hampering of effective investigation in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for bail, stating that the nature and gravity of the accusation, along with the potential to disturb the financial health of banking institutions, did not warrant bail in anticipation of arrest.
JUDGMENT :
1) The petitioners are seeking bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.211/2023 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered with Police Station, Sopore.
2) The petitioner No.1 had earlier filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest but the same was rejected by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore, in terms of order dated 28.08.2023.
3) It is stated that the petitioners had availed loan from Grameen Bank, Sopore, and the said Bank has now levelled false and frivolous allegations that the revenue extracts submitted by the petitioners at the time of availing the loan were fake. The petitioners have filed the present bail application on the ground that they are innocent and in case they are arrested by the respondent, it will tarnish their reputation and status in the society.
4) The respondent was put to notice and Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA, has produced the status report addressed to the Incharge Criminal Monitoring Cell, J&K High Court, Srinagar.
5) Mr. Azeem Rasic, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the petitioners had availed the loan long ago in the year 2011 and now after a period of 12 years, the Bank has lodged the FIR just to harass and force the petitioners to liquidate loan amount.
6) Per contra, Mr. Jahangir, learned GA, submitted that the petitioners had submitted false documents for the purpose of availing the loan facility and when the same came to the knowledge of the complainant-Bank, the FIR was lodged by the Bank. He further submitted that the petitioners are involved in committing the economic offence and, as such, they are not entitled to bail in anticipation of arrest.
7) Heard and perused the record.
8) The perusal of the record reveals that a written report was lodged by one Khursheed Ahmad Mir, Bank Manager, J&K Grameen Bank, Branch New Colony, Sopore, on 17.08.2023, stating therein that Riyaz Ahmad Dar & Ghulam Mohammad Dar (joint loan Account No.3559020150000212), Waqar Ahmad Bhat (loan Account No.35590201500002020), Abdul Majid Bhat (loan Account No.35590201050000160) and Mohammad Akbar Bhat (loan Account No.3559020150000154) availed financial assistance individually under Cash-Credit Fruit Scheme for business of production cum marketing of fruit against the collateral security of mortgage of land in their names from Branch Office New Colony, Sopore. The above mentioned borrowers did not adhere to the terms of the repayment of loan and consequently their loan accounts turned NPAs, which forced the bank to initiate legal action under SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues. In that regard, through letter dated 09.08.2021, the Tehsildar, Tehsil office Watergam, was requested for confirmation of lien and identification of mortgaged land for taking possession under the Act. The Tehsildar, Watergam, vide communication No.TWQ/OQ/2021-22/338 replied with remarks “does not match with the revenue records”, meaning thereby that the abovementioned persons/borrowers have by deceitful means and fraudulently managed loan facilities on the strength of fictitious/fabricated, forged revenue land records. On the receipt of this information, FIR No.211/2023 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, correspondence was made with the concerned Tehsildar, who in his report dated 01.09.2023 submitted that the revenue extracts submitted by the accused persons before the J&K Grameen Bank Branch New Colony, Sopore, were found fake and forged and do not match with the revenue records. It also surfaced during investigation that petitioner No.1-Mohammad Akbar Bhat, had obtained loan facility for an amount of Rs.22.00 lacs whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 2 had obtained loan facility of Rs.5.00 lacs each. An amount of Rs.1,40,24,741/ is outstanding in the name of petitioner No.1 whereas an amount of Rs.17,76,990/ and Rs.36,12,910/ is outstanding in the name of petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively. It is further stated that two accuse
