Allahabad High Court
Smt.Gurcharan Kaur vs C.B.I.,A.C.B.Ghaziabad on 8 May, 2013
Bench: Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6253 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt.Gurcharan Kaur
Respondent :- C.B.I.,A.C.B.Ghaziabad
Petitioner Counsel :- Lav Srivastava,Jawahir Yadav,V.P.Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- Anurag Khanna
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant who is running a business under the name and style of M/s Dee Pee Electricals was availing cash credit facility of Rs.40 lacs from Union Bank of India and as collateral security she mortgaged her property situated at Khasra no.620 Asha Park, Fateh Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi in faovur of the Bank by way of deposit of title deed of the property. The business of the applicant could not be proved to be profitable and she sustained huge losses. It is with this reason that the applicant could not run the Cash Credit Limit properly and the Bank classified the loan account as NPA on 30.09.2009. The Bank, however, initiated proceedings against the applicant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Tribunal ultimately assessed the liability of the applicant of Rs.34 lacs. The Bank has already taken possession upon the property of the applicant so mortgaged with the Bank invoking the provision of Section 13(2) of Securetization Act. Thus, the allegation that the applicant got sanctioned the aforesaid cash credit limit from the Bank by deposit of forged and fabricated title deed is ridiculous. It is equally misconceived that the applicant was in possession of two title deeds of her aforementioned property. In fact the applicant due to financial crises in the business sold her property in favour of Ajay Kumar Panesar and Umesh Vijan with a covenant of reconveyance. The applicant repurchased the property which is now in possession of the Bank as aforementioed. It is hardly a dispute of civil nature and the Bank who has already taken possession of the property so mortgaged by the applicant in its favour. The applicant who is a woman and confined in jail since 14.01.2013 without committing any offence, deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the bail application submitting that the applicant has obtained loan from the Bank against collateral security of her property by way of deposit of forged and fictitious title deed and, therefore, her bail application deserves to be rejected.
Considering the points pertaining to the nature of accusation, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and severity of punishment raised as above by the learned counsel of both the sides and on perusal of record, the Court is of the view that it appears to be a dispute of civil nature. Therefore, the applicant, who is woman, deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Let applicant Smt. Gurcharan Kaur involved in R.C. No. 120 2010 A0010, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationC.B.I. ACB, Ghaziabad be released on bail on her furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:
(i) He shall not intimidate any witnesses in any manner.
(ii) He will co-operate in the trial and will remain present before the trial Court on the date fixed in the matter.
(iii) He will not misuse the liberty of the bail and will not repeat any such instance in future.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 8.5.2013
P
