Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 2143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anant Bijay Singh, J.
Deepak Kumar Bagty - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand Through C.b.i - Respondent
A.B. A. No. 2304 of 2017
Decided On : 16-11-2017
Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate, for the C.B.I
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973, based on the petitioner's cooperation and lack of direct involvement in the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - C.N.T. Act, 1973, Cr.P.C, 1973 - Section 438(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the C.N.T. Act and Cr.P.C, 1973 in relation to the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail and granted bail with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, sought anticipatory bail in connection with multiple cases alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations included giving false legal opinions and involvement in fraudulent loan transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner cooperated with the investigation, was not named in the FIR, and deserved the privilege of anticipatory bail. The court granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including surrendering in the court and cooperating with the CBI.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's innocence, false legal opinions, and his involvement in fraudulent loan transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation, lack of direct involvement in the alleged offences, and the need to ensure his appearance before the trial court.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail with conditions, including surrendering in the court, furnishing bail bond, cooperating with the CBI, and not influencing prosecution witnesses.
JUDGMENT
Anant Bijay Singh, J. – The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. 6(S)15-EOW-R, F.I.R. No. RC0932015S0006 for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C on the basis of complaint lodged by Sri Vimal Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, P.N.B., Circle Office Bagro Market, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand alleging therein that Bank has issued General Power of Attorney in his favour which, he is competent to file complaint, prosecute suit on behalf of bank. It is further alleged that partnership firm namely M/s A.K. Engineering, represented by its partners namely, Mr. Shahid Khan, Mr. Jawed Khan along with its guarantors namely Sahdab Khan, Mr. Azaz Khan, dishonestly applied on 14.03.2011 loan with the bank with a dishonest intention to cheat the bank and Siphon off the Public Money and thereby all the aforesaid persons conspired and with prior agreement and meeting of minds dishonestly induced the bank into loaning transaction for grant of loan of Rs. 10.00 crore. The collateral security in the account is EM of sale deed no. 3963 dated 22.07.2010 and sale deed no. 393 dated 20.01.2011. Thus, the partnership firm namely, M/s A.K. Engineering represented by this partners namely Mr. Shahid Khan, along with its guarantors namely Mr. Sahadab Khan, Mr. Azaz Khan all have jointly conspired and have deliberately with prior meeting of minds have agreed to dishonestly induce the bank into this transaction on the basis of the aforesaid two properties covered by the said two title deeds which are totally prohibited title deeds and thus all the accused persons knew full well that the said mortgage will not be enforceable and marketable by the bank. The value of the property mortgaged was tampered with and altered 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. Thus they 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. On the basis of these allegations instant case has been lodged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Bagty is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is not named in F.I.r. The petitioner is only practicing lawyer and allegation against him is that he has given false legal opinion in terms of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Further, it has been submitted that similarly the petitioner has been implicated in connection with R.C. No. 07(S0/2015EOWR with allegation of sale deed no. 3747 dated 07.07.2008 and in second case being R.C. No. 08(S) 2015-EOW-R, the same sale deed no. 3747 along with sale deed nos. 3739, 3740, 3742, 3745 all dated 07.07.2008 have also been taken whereas in the instant third case being R.C. No. 06(S)2015-EOW-R, two sale deeds out of the above, being sale deed no. 3739 and sale deed no. 3745 both dated 07.07.2008 have again been taken and cases filed under sections 120B r/w sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(2), r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation, the petitioner fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and and when his presence was required. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is an Advocate in Civil Court, Jamshedpur and he has given false legal opinion regarding C.N.T. Act on the basis which loan was sanctioned.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioner, during investigation these petitioner cooperated in the investigation and he was
