Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12311 of 2015 Applicant :- Bablu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Amit Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Second supplementary affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey for the applicant; Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra for CBI; learned AGA for State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant for release on bail in Case Crime No. RC No.120 of 2012 A 0003, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station C.B.I., A.C.B. Ghaziabad, district Ghaziabad.
The prosecution case against the applicant is that the applicant applied for housing loan by impersonating as Manoj Kumar and opened an account and also submitted a forged sale deed to show asset and the said forged sale deed was executed by mother of the applicant of a property which was non-existent and by submitting the same as security obtained a loan of Rs.13 lacs and withdrew the same from the account.
The investigation revealed that the loan application form; savings bank account opening form; utilization form; and other bank documents all carried signatures of the applicant and the aforesaid fact was verified by the opinion of expert from the Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat.
Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for bail on ground that he is innocent; he has been falsely implicated; other co-accused, namely, Mohammad Shehzad and Naveen Kumar Verma against whom there were similar allegations in respect of some other loan account, have been granted bail and therefore the applicant who has already suffered incarceration since 31st October, 2014 is entitled to bail, inasmuch as the trial is not likely to be completed in near future as there are about 82 prosecution witnesses and only three have been examined till date.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the present case the charges are likely to be proved and the investigation has disclosed that various documents were submitted in the hand writing of the applicant and the applicant himself not only impersonated a false person for the purpose of obtaining loan but he also created forged and fictitious sale deed of non-existent property which was allegedly executed by his own mother in his favour and, therefore, gravity of the charges against the applicant are very serious. It has also been submitted that the case of the other co-accused cannot be considered at par with that of the applicant because one of the co-accused, who has been granted bail, had pleaded that he was an illiterate Rickshaw puller and that his identity was misutilized and other co-accused has also been granted bail on similar grounds whereas in the present case not only the applicant but his mother has also been made accused and they have created false and fictitious sale deed as well as other documents for the purpose of obtaining loan therefore it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted bail.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material collected during the course of investigation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it to be a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is accordingly rejected. However, it is provided that the trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018. Rks.