BA1 No. 275 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the court finds from a perusal of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that house loan of Rs.14.50 lacs was taken by the applicant alongwith others. Rs.6 lacs was credited in the account of one Shri Khim Singh and the balance amount was credited in the account of the applicant. Investigation further reveals that the account in the name of Khim Singh was operated by the applicant himself and that the photograph stuck in the application form was that of the applicant. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit has not been denied by the applicant in the rejoinder affidavit. In the light of the aforesaid, the contention of the applicant that similar bail orders have been given to other persons involved in the similar type of scam and, consequently, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail is patently erroneous. The court finds that prima-facie involvement of the applicant is made out and, consequently, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.06.2011 Shiv