Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Union Bank of India, Mumbai through its Chief Manager, Jamshedpur Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2012 With Cr.M.P. No. 250 of 2012
Decided On : 14-05-2019
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 438 – Indian Penal Code - Sections 468, 467, 471, 420, 120B – Bank - Cancellation of anticipatory bail – First Information Report - Heard learned counsel for parties and perused materials available on record was registered on the basis of the written report of Bank through its Chief Manager of Jamshedpur Main Branch alleging that a cash credit facility to tune was given by aforesaid Branch of Bank in Ore Minerals wherein were Shaw stood as guarantors and mortgaged their property in of Bank - Borrower and guarantors did not pay outstanding dues and as such said account was classified as non-performing asset and authorized officer proceeded to take possession of property mortgaged by vide deed – However Bank could not succeed in obtaining possession of same due to intervention of local inhabitants on ground that land does not belong to and during inquiry it was found that the sale deed produced to Bank was a tampered one and mutation slip and rent receipt relating to said deed were also not issued from Circle Office Jamshedpur – Held, In aforesaid judgment it has specifically been held that Section 439 empowers High Court to cancel bail earlier granted however there must be sufficient grounds for cancelling bail order - Hon’ble Supreme Court has given some illustrations where order of cancellation of bail earlier granted may be cancelled but at same time it has also been held that such illustrations are not exhaustive - Coming back to present case anticipatory bail was granted to opposite party on submission that the matter had been settled with the Bank and after lodging of the case they have deposited and would continue to deposit the amount as per agreement and they were ready to give another collateral security in lieu of earlier one where some manipulation was said to have been found in one of the sale deeds - Anticipatory bail granted to co-accused on the said ground has been cancelled by a Bench of this Court and the said order has been confirmed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under such circumstance, I find that it is a fit case to cancel anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as there is no reason to give different treatment to the opposite party than that of co-accused Kumar Singh - So far prayer made by in quashing entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance in connection with corresponding under sections 468, 467, 471, 420, 120B I.P.C. grounds raised therein appears to be factual in nature which cannot be determined in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 - Moreover, the earlier petition being filed by the accused name with similar prayer has already been dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2012 having found that allegations leveled against the petitioners sufficiently disclose the offence as alleged - While dismissing said criminal miscellaneous petition said petitioners were given liberty to raise all the points before the court below at appropriate stage - Petitioner stands on similar footing – Appeal disposed of
Cr.M.P No. 1095 of 2012 has been preferred by the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Laxmi Singh and Rohit Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively) vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A No. 1147 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1187 of 2008, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
2. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the Bank is that co-accused Ramesh Kumar Singh was also granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.07.2008 passed in A.B.A. No. 1178 of 2008 after having taken into consideration the submission made on his behalf that the matter had been settled between the parties. However, subsequently the said anticipatory bail granted to Ramesh Kumar Singh was cancelled vide order dated 08.07.2011 (modified on 06.02.2012) passed in Cr.M.P No. 1285 of 2009 observing that Ramesh Kumar Singh, after passing of the order neither deposited any amount nor filed another copy of sale deed as collateral security and he did not honour his commitment made before the court to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the Bank in order to get the matter of settlement initiated. The said order of cancellation has attained finality by the dismissal of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6219 of 2011 preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh vide order dated 02.09.2011.
3. Cr.M.P No. 250 of 2012 has been preferred by Ramesh Kumar Singh for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned court took cognizance of the offences under sections 468, 467, 471, 420, 120B I.P.C. in connection with Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008, corresponding to G.R No. 1187 of 2008 contending that though as per the said FIR the allegation is that sale deed no. 227 has been tampered and mutation slip no. 410/II/81-82 and Rent Receipt No. 807784 dated 16.10.2004 has not been issued from the office of the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, yet during the entire investigation, no evidence has been collected showing commission of any such offence whatsoever. It has further been contended that the Bank has initiated criminal prosecution only to pressurize the petitioner and other accused persons for payment of alleged dues of the Bank which is primarily a civil dispute and no criminal culpability is made out against him.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Bistupur P.S Case No. 129 of 2008 was registered on the basis of the written report of the Bank through its Chief Manager of Jamshedpur Main Branch alleging that a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore was given by the aforesaid Branch of the Bank in favour of M/s Laxmi Ore Minerals (P) Ltd. on 28.09.2005, wherein Ramesh Kumar Singh, Laxmi Singh and Rohit Kumar Singh were the Directors. Raj Kumar Shaw, Ganesh Shaw and Ajit Kumar stood as guarantors and mortgaged their property in favour of the Bank. The borrower and guarantors did not pay the outstanding dues and as such, the said account was classified as non-performing asset and the authorized officer proceeded to take possession of the property mortgaged by Raj Kumar Shaw vide deed no. 227. However, the Bank could not succeed in obtaining possession of the same due to the intervention of the local inhabitants on the ground that the land does not belong to Raj Kumar Shaw and during inquiry, it was found that the sale deed no. 227 dated 16.10.1981 produced to the Bank was a tampered one and the mutation slip and rent receipt relating to the said deed were also not issued from the Circle Office, Jamshedpur.
5. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the Bank for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the opposite pa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
