IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25550 of 2008 UPENDRA KUMAR @ UMENDRA KUMAR s/o Narsingh Narayan Singh Resident of village Hardiya, P.S.Mehandia District Arwal. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 21.10.2008 Heard. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC against the petitioner and the informant Mahesh Paswan alleged that the petitioner being a co-villager convinced him and some other co-villagers that loan was being made available under the construction of Indira Awas and Fishries Schemes and on such representation, he took his (informant’s) signature and the signatures of some other villagers on some forms and for obtaining a loan of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) in favour of each of them. The informant further alleged that after obtaining signature of loanees they did not get any loan amount and the petitioner purchased one Commander Jeep and an Ambassador car and subsequently they learnt that money had been withdrawn by the petitioner in their names and the money had been utilised by the petitioner for his personal gain. The informant also alleged that on 10th May 2006, he got notice from the Bank about repayment of loan, then he made enquiry and learnt that the petitioner fraudulently withdrew money from Magadh Gramin Bank, Balidad Branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on suspicion. He also submits that in Bank loans are advanced after observing strict paraphernalia wherein signatures of loanees are obtained, guarantors also sign and loan is 2 disbursed after performance of strict rules. Mr.S.R.Haque, learned A.P.P. refers to Para-5 of the case diary containing further statement of informant who supports his case. Learned A.P.P. also refers to statement of witnesses Abhiram Singh and Babban Singh in Para-8 and 10 of the case diary and points out that these witnesses stated that the informant had got loan of Rs.25,000/- each sanctioned but subsequently gave Rs.4,000/- each only and the remaining amount was not given to them. He also refers to the statements of Ramanuj Sharma and Lallan Kumasr in Para-7 and 9 who also have stated that the petitioner had obtained their signatures on forms for making available Rs.24,000/- each but any money was not given to them. Learned A.P.P. further points out that all these witnesses have stated in the case diary that subsequently they got notice from the Bank for repayment of loan and then they learnt about the fraud committed by the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. further refers to the statement of witness Lallan Kumar in Para-9 of the case diary who has stated that when he asked the petitioner about the commission of fraud, petitioner stated that he will swear an affidavit about the repayment of money received by him (petitioner) in the name of loanees and he (petitioner) swore an affidavit to that effect. Learned A.P.P. further refers to Para-52 of the case diary wherein the I.O. has mentioned that the petitioner had sworn an affidavit to the effect that he had withdrawn the amount of loan and that the amount mentioned in the affidavit will be paid to them and further that the petitioner had utilised a sum of Rs.1,32,500/- for his 3 own purpose which will be repayed to the Bank. Mr.Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner had fraudulently withdrawn money from the Bank and he also sworn an affidavit and undertook to pay the money withdrawn in the name of informant and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit containing photo copy of plaint of Complaint Case No. 552 of 2007 which was filed by the petitioner against the informant and other witnesses of this case with the allegation that the informant and others taking Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate, identifier on the affidavit and Mr. Rajendra Singh, a notary public in collusion before whom the affidavit was sworn, a false affidavit was created. The complaint was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for institution of F.I.R. and accordingly, F.I.R. being Mehandia P.S.Case No. 552 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 475 and 120-B IPC has been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the affidavit referred to is forged and fabricated affidavit prepared by the informant and others in order to implicate the petitioner in this case. Learned A.P.P. replied that the affidavit has been duly sworn in before the Notary Public and the petitioner was duly identified by a lawyer and ten months after lodging of the complaint case by the informant the petitioner lodged complainant-petition as a defence measure. Learned A.P.P. also submits that a Police case has already been registered on the complaint filed by the petitioner and 4 investigation is progressing in that case also. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is refused. In view of the defence stand taken by the petitioner that false and fabricated affidavit has been used, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if something is found in his favour in the investigation of the case, lodged by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has alleged that the affidavit is forged and fabricated. Jay/ (C.M. Prasad,J)