Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umar Mohammad vs State Of Haryana on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30564-2024 DECIDED ON: 03.07.2024 UMAR MOHAMMAD veees PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA soon RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.340, dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been nominated in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement made by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dharuhera alleging that he has furnished forged and fabricated document pertaining to ownership of land which was mortgaged with the said bank to avail the loan amount of Rs.3 lacs and once he failed to repay the said amount, the instant FIR came to be lodged.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl.
A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits POONAM NEGI 2024.07.03 18:51 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-30564-2024 -2-that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must for ascertaining the modus operandi and the name of other persons who are involved in causing financial loss to the financial institution i.e. State Bank of India, Dharuhera.
On the asking of the Court, he submits that in total four accused have been named in the FIR but none from the office of revenue department concerned where from the jamabandi and khasra girdawari alleged to have been obtained which are stated to be forged with the help of which the petitioner successfully cheated the bank has been named.
Be that as it may, this Court has no reason to believe the argument raised on behalf of the State to the effect that the petitioner has forged the document pertaining to his own land qua ownership over the same showing it to be excess than the actual land belonging to him with a view to get enhanced limit of loan. It is hard to believe that an illiterate person who is a rustic villager can commit such a fraud without the connivance of revenue official on the khasra girdawari, jamabandi and any other revenue record and otherwise also a bona fide owner has no occasion whatsoever to forge the document to avail loan from the bank since he himself is genuine and absolute owner of the piece of land which is mortgaged to the bank. However, as far as the process of investigation is concerned, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not deemed to be necessary which is based on documentary evidence i.e. in the form of revenue record and that can be obtained by the investigating agency from the office of Tehsildar Dharu Khera and the prayer for taking the petitioner into custody is unfounded.
POONAM NEGI 2024.07.03 18:51 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-30564-2024 -3-As far as submission regarding modus operandi is concerned that can be ascertained by the investigating officer if the petitioner is made to join the investigation without his arrest.
In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 03.07.2024 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2024.07.03 18:51 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.