IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-15296 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 31, 2011. Ajit Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anant Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.18 dated 1.4.2011 registered at Police Station Daresi, Ludhiana under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The above-stated FIR has been got registered by the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Daresi Road Branch, Patiala, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner and his associates got sanctioned a Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant bank as working capital to carry on his business of manufacture of hosiery goods and one Smt.Janak Dulari offered to stand as guarantor to the said credit facilities. She offered to create equitable mortgage in favour of the Crl.Misc.No.M-15296 of 2011 [2] complainant-bank over her property bearing No.B-III/208, having new number B-III/451 situated at Mohalla Master Sham Lal, Purana Bazar, Ludhiana. It was represented by the borrower and Smt.Janak Dulari that the afore-said property was purchased vide sale deed dated 25.1.1962. The bank authorities bonafidely believed the borrower and Smt.Janak Dulari and advanced the loan facilities on creation of equitable mortgage in respect of the aforesaid property. The loanee, however, failed to maintain the proper credit in his account and at the time of registration of the FIR, over Rs.32.0 lacs were outstanding balance against them. As the bank wanted to take action for the recovery of the due amount by disposing of the mortgaged property, it transpired that Smt.Janak Dulari had already sold the mortgaged property vide sale deed dated 17.4.1995 in favour of accused Nos.3 & 4, namely, Sri Pal and Sanjeev Kumar. It is pertinent to mention that the mortgage was created in favour of the bank on 16.4.1996 whereas the said property has already been sold by Smt.Janak Dulari on 17.4.1995. The vendees, namely, accused Nos.3 & 4 never applied to the Municipal Corporation for transfer of the aforesaid property in their name and it remained in the name of Smt.Janak Dulari till it was mortgaged with the bank. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the vendee-accused Nos.3 & 4 are none else but closely related to the present petitioner as well as Smt.Janak Dulari and no sale consideration is said to have been paid by them to Smt.Janak Dulari in the presence of the Sub Registrar. The facts would speak for themselves that the petitioner and his close relatives have a pre-planned conspiracy to cheat and defraud the Crl.Misc.No.M-15296 of 2011 [3] bank knowingly fully well that Smt.Janak Dulari was not owner of the property mortgaged by them in favour of the bank on 16.4.1996. In such like cases, the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted. Dismissed. May 31, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE