IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.1187 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Surendra Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.453 of 2009, U/s 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Haridwar Dated: March 17, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava and Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that the applicant took a loan from Central Bank of India, Haridwar Branch on 2.5.2005 for which his property was mortgaged in the Bank. On 16.9.2005, the applicant sold the aforesaid property by a registered sale deed to another person. After that co-accused Vivek Chauhan and Alka Chauhan took a loan in the name of firm Apollo Computers for Rs.30.00 lacs on 28.10.2006 and for that loan, the applicant became the guarantor and also mortgaged the above-said property again in the bank knowingly and intentionally that he was not the owner of the property and that property he has already sold on 16.9.2005. It was further averted in the FIR that the applicant has committed cheating and played fraud upon the bank authorities by filing the false and fake documents in the bank as a guarantor regarding a property for which he was not the owner on the date when he appeared as guarantor i.e. on 28.10.2006. With these averments, the FIR was lodged on 31.8.2009 by Ambrish Kumar Singhal, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Haridwar Branch. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the amount of loan taken by him on 2.5.2005 was deposited by him in the bank on 28.12.2005. Contrary to that stand learned Brief Holder argued that the applicant took the loan from the Bank on 2.5.2005 and also mortgaged his property on the same day. However, without giving any knowledge to the bank authorities, the applicant again sold the aforesaid property to some another person on 16.9.2005, while the amount of loan was deposited by the applicant on 28.12.2005. He further submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history, which reads as under: - Sl. No. Case Crime No. Under Sections Police Station 1. 41/08 420/467/468/506 /406 IPC P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar 2. 98/07 420/467/468/471 /343/506 IPC -DO- 3. 307/06 420/467/468/471 /406 IPC P.S. Bahadur Garh, Haryana 4. 149/07 365 IPC P.S. Jhajjar, Haryana 5. 298/05 406/420/323/506 IPC P.S. Ranipur Haridwar 6. Case No.244/08 138 N.I. Act 17.3.2008 (55 Lakh) -- 7. Case No.651/08 U/s 138 N.I. Act (27 Lakhs, 40 Lakh and 35 Lakhs) -- On a careful consideration of the entire facts of the case, it transpires that the applicant had committed cheating and played fraud upon the bank by selling the property in question at the time when the loan was not paid by him to the bank and even the property was mortgaged with the Bank. Again on 28.10.2006, the applicant stood as guarantor for mortgaging the same property in the Bank for the Firm in the name of Apollo Computers run by co-accused Vivek Chauhan and Alka Chauhan for Rs.30.00 lacs, which he already sold to someone by a registered sale deed. Even the applicant is habitual of these types of cases and also has long criminal history as quoted above. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record as well as considering the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 17.03.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)