IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33313 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.5.2009 Balwinder Singh and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint made by Sh. HPS Hundal, Assistant Manager (Legal), Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandigarh (“Bank” – for short). It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioners and one Munish Aggarwal (non-petitioner) had committed forgery by procuring loan from the complainant Bank by submitting forged land papers in the Bank and had committed cheating and fraud with the Bank by selling the tractor which was under hypothecation of the Bank. It is alleged that the tractor was sold in collusion and with common intention of each other. Besides, the accused had issued threats to the Bank officials. It is submitted that at the request of the petitioners, the Bank had extended finance facility for a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- in March, 2005 to enable them to purchase a tractor. A Farmtrac-60 tractor which was under hypothecation of the Bank in the loan agreement was purchased. Munish Aggarwal (non- petitioner) had given guarantee in the loan agreement that the vehicle would be kept by the petitioners in safe custody, proper condition and the hirer would Crl. Misc. No. M-33313 of 2008 -2- produce the tractor as and when required by the Bank for inspection as per the terms of the agreements agreed by both the borrowers and guarantor and would not sell the vehicle without repaying the loan of the Bank. In case of default or breach of contract, both the hirer and the guarantor would be jointly and severely responsible. The required papers were signed by the hirer and the guarantor at the dealership of the Farmtrac Tractor i.e. at Yamuna Syndicate Ltd. Ropar and the tractor was delivered. In order to procure the loan from the Bank, the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal had submitted Jamabandi (Record of Rights) papers dated 17.3.2005 of village Fathepur Bunga, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Ropar regarding Khewat No.144, Kathoni No.169, Khewat No.34 in the name of Harbans Singh (petitioner No.2). The same was given for mortgage as security. The petitioners and the guarantor Munish Aggarwal committed serious default and financial irregularities, besides they failed to repay the loan amount. The outstanding amount as on the date of FIR was Rs.3,26,679/-. When they failed to repay the loan amount, the Bank started its procedure for initiating legal action on the mortgage land. On getting the latest farad (revenue record) of the above mentioned land from the Patwari , it transpired that the details and particulars mentioned in the farad (revenue record) were false, fabricated and forged. Besides, apart from not paying the amount, the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal were not even producing the tractor for inspection. On further verification from the local villagers, it came to knowledge that the petitioners and the guarantor were hand in glove with each other and their modus operandi was to obtain vehicle on loan from the banks for purchasing the vehicles and then sell off those vehicles of the Bank in consideration of money without paying the loan amount back to the bank, thereby committing breach and fraud with the bank. Whenever the Bank authorities ask them about the tractor, they said that they had sold the tractor. They also chase away the Bank officials and say that they can do whatever they Crl. Misc. No. M-33313 of 2008 -3- can to recover the tractor or the loan. The Bank had made every effort to trace the tractor, but all in vain. The said act of the hirers and the guarantors it is alleged amount to cheating, fraud and forgery with the Bank. The Bank officials had made numerous visit to the house of the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal, but all were in vain. On several occasions, the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal had abused and threatened them not to be seen in the nearby area of the house; thus making the life of the officials of the Bank miserable and fearful. The said conduct of the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal had forced the Bank to approach the Police to get justice. It was requested that a case be registered against the petitioners and Munish Aggarwal so that they are brought to book in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that efforts have been made by the petitioners to settle the dispute with the Bank. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 8.5.2009, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the dispute is regarding loan of the tractor and he would settle the same within three weeks. The case was adjourned, on the said date for today so as to enable the petitioner to settle the dispute. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that verbal discussions have been carried out with the Bank officials for a one time settlement and they have referred the matter to the Head Office for final approval. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted a list of the following six cases which have been registered against the petitioners:- Sr. No. FIR Nos. Dated Under Sections Police Station 1. 42 28.5.1998 420 and 506 IPC Balachour 2. 97 20.11.2000 420, 411 and 379 IPC Morinda 3. 171 6.12.2002 406 and 420 IPC -do- 4. 216 26.10.04 419, 420, 467, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC Ropar 5. 24 2.2.2005 406 and 420 IPC Balachour 6. 130 29.10.2008 406, 415, 341 IPC Chamkaur Sahib Crl. Misc. No. M-33313 of 2008 -4- It is submitted that the petitioners had been indulging in similar activities of obtaining loans and then not returning them with the intention to cheat. Besides, their custodial interrogation would be necessary to unearth the actual position. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that all the above six FIRs have since been quashed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The facts and circumstances of the case are that the petitioners had obtained loan from the bank by submitting forged revenue records, thereby misleading the Bank to advance them loan. Thereafter, they sold the tractor which was under hypothecation with the Bank. Besides, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the modus operandi for obtaining loan that has been adopted by the petitioners is not only in the present case but in six other cases that have been registered against them. The said cases even though may have been compromised earlier would clearly show their propensity to indulge in such activities. It may also be noticed that the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custody of the petitioners would be required as their custodial interrogation is of utmost necessity in such cases. The contention regarding one time settlement having been reached at is based on mere verbal discussion and no material has been placed on record to show that the Bank indeed has referred the case to the head office for final approval as alleged. This Court in a case where pre-arrest bail is sought by an accused is to keep in mind the advantage of custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of eliciting more and useful information. Even otherwise, the exercise of power to grant of pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that the petitioners have indulged in obtaining loan for the purchase of tractor by Crl. Misc. No. M-33313 of 2008 -5- submitting fake and forged revenue record. Besides, earlier also similar cases have been registered against them, which shows their propensity to such activities. The contention of the petitioners that a one time settlement has been reached at with the Bank is based on verbal discussions and is not substantiated by any material. In view of the above facts and circumstances, no ground for the grant of pre arrest bail to the petitioners is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 29, 2009 amit