IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
Raj Kumar Yadav & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6892, 7692 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Bail - Forgery - The court allowed the bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for the applicants who were arrested for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, as they had furnished NOC declaring payment of full loan amount and further pretrial detention was not warranted due to the completion of investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were arrested in connection with offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC related to forgery and taking loans based on forged documents. They filed bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail applications, considering that the applicants had furnished NOC declaring payment of full loan amount and that further pretrial detention was not warranted as the investigation was already completed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted bail despite the allegations of forging documents and taking loans based on forged documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the completion of investigation and the applicants' furnishing of NOC declaring payment of full loan amount justified granting bail, as further pretrial detention was not warranted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail applications and directed the applicants to be released on bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J. - These three first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C have been filed on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail, pending the trial, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.736/2022, registered at P.S.-Kohefiza, District Bhopal (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Applicant Raj Kumar Yadav is in detention since 26.01.2023, applicant Bahar Miya is in detention since 12.01.203 and applicant Manoj Tomar is in detention since 03.11.2022.
2. As per the prosecution story, in Syndicate bank Branch after merger Canara Bank Bairisiya Road, one person Jamna Prasad had got sanctioned a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- in collusion with Bank Manager. After sanction of loan, Jamna Prasad took loan amount from him but no footwear were given to him for starting business. FIR was registered. In the course of investigation, Manoj Tomar, Pramod Verma, Bank Manager Devendra Sahu and Abid Khan were found involved in the commission of same type of offences. It was found that Shankar Saav, Madhu Ivent Proprietor Raj Kumar Yadav, Chandan Vimnere, Gabbar Singh, Ramcharan Makoriya, Lav Kumar and Bahar Miya etc.in collusion with Pramod Verma prepared forged and fake documents of Verma Traders and got sanctioned loan of various amount from the bank by preparing forged and fake cash bill memo etc. Thus, they committed forgery of rupees one crore and sixty lakhs and of some other amounts also.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants have not committed any offence. They are innocent. They have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that applicants have already paid full bank loan amount and NOC has been issued in their favour by the bank authorities. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicants be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant of bail to the applicants and has submitted that it is a case where payment of money by the customer of the bank to the bank is not material. The main allegations against the present applicants are about preparing forged and fake documents of Verma Traders and taking loan and subsidy on the basis of such forged documents. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5. In this case, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The applicants have furnished NOC to Raj Kumar Yadav and Bahar Miya issued by the bank authorities declaring that they have paid full loan amount taken by them. As far the allegations of forging documents are concerned, trial of the c as e will take considerable time. Investigation is already over. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a case in which further pretrial detention of the applicants/accused is not warranted. Consequently, these first bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicants, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicants - Raj Kumar Yadav, Bahar Miya and Manoj Tomar be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. They shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
The completion of investigation and the applicants' furnishing of NOC declaring payment of full loan amount justified granting bail, as further pretrial detention was not warranted.
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Petitioners are permanent residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice.
The court denied bail based on substantial evidence of collusion and deceit among the accused-petitioners in executing forged documents, causing significant financial loss.
The court's discretion to grant bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation and the nature of allegations.
The court emphasized that interim bail is necessary to avoid pre-trial punishment and that the applicant's involvement in alleged fraud will be assessed during trial proceedings.
The court ruled on bail eligibility based on the lack of compelling evidence for continued detention.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.