Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10571 of 2021 Applicant :- Daud Dahanga Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for interim anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicant, Daud Dahanga, in connection with Case Crime No. 573 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC Police Station Kaushambi District Ghaziabad.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he is a Chief Manager with the Novel Cooperative Bank and has sanctioned a loan in favour of a company M/s Krikso India Limited through its Director Shailesh Kumar Singh on 31.03.2018, 4.01.2019 and 07.02.2019 in the sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-, 27,00,000/- and 7,00,000/- respectively totaling a sum of Rs. 69,00,000/-. The loan sanctioned is a term loan and a over draft loan. The allegation against the petitioner is that the loan has been secured on the basis of forged documents relating to land which had already been transferred in favour of a third party and was no longer available to be offered as security. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has depended upon the report of the learned Panel Lawyer who has carried out of examination of records in the Sub-Registrar's office and given a non encumbrance certificate as also a certificate of clean title. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is the Board of Directors, who have sanctioned the loan, and not the applicant.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the loan has been sanctioned on the report submitted by the applicant, who is a Senior Manager of the Bank.
This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
It is true that the loan that is sanctioned might have been formally or finally been the result of a decision of the Board of Directors but the Board would depend substantially upon the recommendation of a Senior Officer of the Bank like a Chief Manager to grant or decline approval. It was, therefore, the duty of the applicant to have carefully cross checked the records before recommending grant of loan in favour of M/s Krikso India Limited on the security of a property that was already transferred and not available to be mortgaged. The applicant cannot pass on the buck to the learned Panel Lawyer, who would have undertaken an examination of records in the Sub Registrar's Office to check for encumbrance etc. Even if the Panel Lawyer is guilty in some measure, the applicant, being a responsible officer of the Bank in a financial matter, cannot shake off his liability.
In the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case to grant the anticipatory bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is declined.
However, in case the applicant surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the Court below.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2021 Deepak