ORDER

Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai, J.

1. The original complainant Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) through its official liquidator has preferred the application no. 14234 of 2019 against the respondent no. 3-accused Ramesh Samarthmal Sheth, for cancellation of bail, which was granted to him by way of order passed in CRMA no. 787 of 2018 dated 17.02.2018, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Court No. 10, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad City.

1.1 The applicant-State has preferred a separate application vide CRMA No. 21308 of 2018 against the said accused who is mentioned as respondent in the said application, praying for the same relief i.e. cancellation of bail, challenging the same order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Court No. 10, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad City.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the applicant-bank, Mr. Rohan Rawal learned APP for the respondent no.1/applicant-State and learned Senior advocate Mr. I.H. Syed with learned advocate Mr. G.G. Trivedi for the respondent no. 3/ respondent-accused, in both the applications.

3. At the outset, M case no. 8 of 2005 was filed by the complainant- bank against the respondent accused no. 3 and other co-accused which had culminated in filing of the charge sheet on 20.12.2005. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent no. 3/ respondent-accused Ramesh Samarthmal Sheth and co-accused Abdul Gaffar Abdul Karim Khan were the partners of partnership firm named GK builders which had sought loan from the applicant-bank, whereas, the accused nos. 6 and 7 had stood as guarantors against the said borrowing by the respondent no.3-accused and co-accused Abdul Gaffar. Thereafter, the respondent no.3-accused had defaulted in repaying the loan amount of Rs. 14,18,11,919/-. It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent no. 3/respondent-accused had acted in connivance with the bank officials, who were also arraigned as co-accused in the said offence.

4. It is extremely discomforting to note that, though the charge-sheet came to be filed in the year 2005, the respondent no. 3/respondent-accused came to be arrested only in the year 2018, and thereafter, came to be released on regular bail vide order passed in CRMA no. 787 of 2018 on 17.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court no. 10 of Ahmedabad City.

4.1 It is pertinent to observe that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while enlarging the respondent no.3accused on bail, vide order passed in CRMA no. 787 of 2018, had observed that, the applicant had repaid an amount of Rs. 2 crores and 75 lakhs to the applicant-bank, and the dues of the applicant-bank were well secured by way of charge on 2 residential flats situated in Mumbai, valued at approximately Rs. 50 crores. The learned Judge had also noted that, the applicant had remained present for the settlement and that, he was old and aged and that, he was present for the settlement before the appropriate authority. The learned Judge had also observed that, the charges leveled against the respondent no. 3-accused were related to the non payment of loan amount and disposal of the mortgage property. According to the Learned Judge, without entering into the merits of the case, since other co-accused were bailed out by the said court and by the Hon’ble High Court, on the ground of parity, the respondent no. 3/respondent-accused was required to be released on bail. Learned Judge had further observed that, when the respondent no. 3-accused was present before the proper forum for getting anticipatory bail, which was rejected, it cannot be said that he had absconded.

4.2 On perusing the report submitted by the ACP, Fraud Cell, CID Crime-Gandhinagar in the present applications, it has been specifically stated that, the applicant and the other co-accused in connivance with the bank officials, who too have been joined as co-accused, had hatched a conspiracy and had successfully