Crl. Misc. No. M- 31026 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 31026 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 04, 2011 Ashok Kumar ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Pt. H.O.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner-accused, Ashok Kumar, for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.319 dated 20.9.2011 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC in Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. He has contended therein that the allegations against him in the FIR are false and he never obtained any such loan from the bank. There is undue delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged loan was sanctioned in the year 2007, whereas the FIR has been got registered in the Crl. Misc. No. M- 31026 of 2011(O&M) -2- year 2011. The story so propounded by the complainant is improbable. In fact, he has been falsely involved by one Suresh Kumar, Patwari, and Gurdail Singh, who was working in the bank as Field Officer. In the year 2007, he was called by Gurdial Singh and others to witness certain documents for the loan to be obtained by him and all those persons, in connivance with each other, forged those documents. It was on the written application of the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Naraingarh, District Ambala, that the present FIR was registered against the accused. As per the version given therein, he had obtained a loan of ` 5,00,000/- under Kissan Credit Gold Scheme and a loan of ` 2,00,000/- under Kissan Cash Credit Scheme , for which he executed various documents, including the Hypothication Agreement dated 14.7.2007 and Mortgage Deed dated 10.7.2007. Subsequently, it was found that he was not owner of the land, regarding which the mortgage deed was executed and which was the security for the repayment of the loan and thereby he caused the loss of ` 10.66 lacs to the said bank. By referring to the documents annexed with the petition, it has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that actual dispute was between the petitioner and the above said Patwari, which was compromised and he had been paying the installments towards the amount, which was settled between them, and it was that Patwari, who forged the documents, which are alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the bank. There may be such a dispute between the Patwari and the petitioner but it is very much clear from the contents of the FIR that for obtaining the loan from the bank he executed the documents mentioned therein and for the repayment of the loan, mortgaged the land, which was Crl. Misc. No. M- 31026 of 2011(O&M) -3- never owned by him, thereby committing fraud with the bank. The facts of the case are such that he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is only his custodial interrogation which will help the investigating agency to reach at the root of the fraud committed by him. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 04, 2011 PARAMJIT