Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17063 of 2019 Applicant :- Shabbir Ahmad Jafari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
By means of this application the applicant Shabbir Ahmad Jafari has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2018, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S.
Anwarganj, District Kanpur Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case crime number on the basis statement made by son of guarantor and that too in the year 2015, whereas loan was sanctioned in the year 2007 and the accused applicant is of no concern with the above loan or extension of loan or mortgage for security of loan. He has been implicated in this case on account of his being brother-in-law of Mumtaj Ahmad Siddique. He is neither beneficiary nor has any connection with the loan, whereas the loan and extension of loan was sanctioned after due verification and investigation made by valuer as well panel of lawyer of the Bank concerned. Subsequently when the loan account became non-performance asset a case was filed by the Bank in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which was decreed in favour of the Bank and for realization of the amount proceeding under SARFESI Act were initiated and then only the son of the guarantor Miftaul Anwar moved an application before the Bank alleging therein that some imposter stood as a guarantor in place of Miftaul Anwar, who had died in the year 2001. It was a fraud played by the loanee in collusion with the Bank officials. The accused-applicant is an old aged person and has no criminal antecedent. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application with this contention that accused-applicant is brother-in-law of the accused-applicant no. 1, Mumtaj Ahmad Siddique. Initially this loan was sanctioned for Rs. 4,60,000/- and was extended three times and ultimately it was extended to the limit of Rs. One Crore. Initially the guarantor was Abdul Qaiyyum son of Haji Chunna Miyan and Miftaul Anwar, whereas at the time of extension and subsequent extension of loan Miftaul Anwar had mortgaged his house and he had come to the Bank along with Mumtaj Ahmad Siddiqui and Smt. Musarrat Siddiqui. Meaning thereby this was under full knowledge of accused-applicant that he was impersonating himself as Miftaul Anwar and executed the deed of mortgage, whereas he was of no concern with the mortgaged property and huge amount of public money has been syphoned by Mumtaj Ahmad Siddique and Smt. Musarrat Siddique under this conspiracy and fraud with the applicant. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on a perusal of the evidence on record it is apparent that the Bank sanctioned loan to M/s Mumtaj Trading Company of which Proprietor is Mumtaj Ahmad Siddique on 9.1.2007 for Rs. Five lacs and this was guaranteed by two guarantors Abdul Quaiyyum and Miftaul Anwar. Till then it was of no dispute. Subsequently Mumtaj Ahmad Siddiqui, Musarrat Siddiqui along with one person impersonating himself as Miftaul Anwar came to the Bank and on the basis of the property deed wrongly got sanction of extension of loan and ultimately it was extended up to the limit of Rs. One Crore. Subsequently payment was not made, the loan account became a non-performance asset and the dues came to Rs. 1,29,38,014/-. Thereafter the Bank filed a Suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which was decreed in favour of the Bank on 26.2.2014. Then execution proceeding was taken and in response to the issuance of notice Adil Mifta, son of Miftaul Anwar filed a representation before the Bank officer that his father Miftaul Anwar had died in the year 2001, death certificate was also filed along with the representation and it was said that he never stood guarantor for above loan. This was investigated and enquired by the Bank Officials and they found that death of Miftaul Anwar and date of death were correct facts and the person, whose photograph was in the Bank record as guarantor, was the present accused-applicant. This was found in the course of subsequent investigation that the present accused-applicant stood as guarantor in the place of deceased Miftaul Anwar by impersonating himself as Miftaul Anwar and got the above loan sanctioned and its extension up to the limit of Rs. One Crore and thereafter syphoned a huge amount of public money.
Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, likelihood of fleeing from course of justice and tampering of evidence, in case of release on bail, severity of the punishment in case of conviction, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019/Pcl