Jharkhand High Court
Ram Tahal Mahto vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 3 October, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 629 of 2022
Ram Tahal Mahto, son of late Narsingh Mahto, R/o village- Sindoor, PO and
PS: Sadar, Distt. Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate;
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate;
Mr. V.K. Roy, Advocate
Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI;
Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
------
CAV On 11.07.2024 Pronounced on 03.10.2024
IA No. 9006 of 2022 and IA No. 6656 of 2024
The IA No. 9006 of 2022 has been filed under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
on behalf of the appellant Ram Tahal Mahto for grant of suspension of
sentence during pendency of the criminal appeal. The IA no. 6656 of 2024
has been filed for confirmation of provisional bail of the appellant granted
vide order dated 10.10.2023, during the pendency of the main memo of
appeal.
2. The appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated
26.7.2022 and order of sentence dated 28.7.2022 passed in R.C. 01(S)/2010-
AHD-R whihc corresponds to FIR No. R.C. 01(S)/2010-AHD-R,
SPE/CBI/AHD passed by learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII-
cum- Spl. Judge, CBI at Ranchi whereby and where under the appellant was
convicted U/s 420/120B of IPC, U/s 120B r/w Section 467of IPC, U/s 120B
r/w Section 468 of IPC, U/s 120B r/w Section 471 of IPC. The appellant was
sentenced to 03 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default 03
months S.I. for his conviction U/s 420/120B of IPC, R. I. for 05 Years with
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default S. I. for 03 months for his conviction U/s
120B r/w Section 467 of IPC, R. I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and in default S.I. for 03 months for his conviction U/s 120B r/w Section 468
of IPC and the appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years
with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default S.I. for 03 months for his conviction
U/s 120B r/w Section 471 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to be run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution story as per the F.I.R.,in brief, is that Ram Tahal
Mahto, Mahadeo Prasad Mehta, Prayag Prasad Mehta and Ajay Kumar, all
partners of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh, entered into criminal
conspiracy among themselves and with some other unknown persons during
the period of 2006-07 and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they
on the basis of forged and fabricated collateral security documents induced
Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Hazaribagh to sanction loan of Rs.
2,65,65,000/- for establishing a Cold Storage at village- Sindur, Distt-
Hazaribagh in name and style of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage. It is further
alleged that the partners of the said M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh by
forging and getting forged signatures and LTI of some guarantors on the loan
document submitted those documents to the bank for sanction of loan. The
aforesaid loan was sanctioned due to criminal conspiracy by aid of bank of
officials. As a result of aforesaid fraud and fabrication of document the land
on which Cold Storage was actually constructed was not mortgaged to the
bank and after sanction of loan the authorities of the said bank could not
initiate any legal action to secure possession of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage.
The said loan amount with interest came to the tune of Rs. 3,37,21,452/- and
became N.P.A.(Non-Performing Asset). Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged U/s
120B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC against all the partners of the said Cold
Storage by the CBI, AHD Branch, Ran chi.
Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged
against the partners of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, Hazaribagh, wherein it was
alleged that cold storage was constructed on a land which has not been
mortgaged to the Bank and thus bank was not able to initiate legal action to
take possessions of the cold storage on the account turning NPA has itself
become infructuous since the bank took the physical possession of the said
cold storage on 09.04.2012 under provision of SARFAESI ACT 2002 and
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which is apparent from the
defence document Exhibit-C marked on behalf of defence. The learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that the allegations of criminal
conspiracy in getting the loan sanctioned would have made sense if the
accused had obtained the loan and not constructed the cold storage and had
misappropriated or diverted the bank's fund, but, the fact is that the accused
have honestly spent so much of time, energy as well as own fund of nearly
Rs.90 lacs to get the cold storage constructed which is ample proof that no
criminal conspiracy as such was involved in it. The allegations of causing
loss to the bank is not true since the bank is in the possession of the property
and it is the accused who are actually at a loss since they have lost the unit
along with their valuable land. The learned court below has failed to taken
into consideration that to establish the guilt of the accused, criminal intent
and mensrea is necessary ingredient and in order to prove criminal
conspiracy meeting of mind is required and both the ingredients are missing
in this case against the appellant. The learned Court below has failed to take
into consideration that there is no evidence forthcoming about conspiracy and
meeting of mind of the appellant during the trial. The learned court below
has also failed to take note of the fact that even the investigating officer of
the case has not collected any evidence against the appellant in connection
with the present case. It is submitted here that on 09.04.2012, the Allahabad
Bank has taken possession of property of M/s Bajrang Cold Storage and
sealed it which is still in the possession of Bank whose document is already
exhibited before the learned Court below as exhibit -C.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant
has entered into a compromise settlement/ one time settlement with the Bank
and settled the loan account by paying rupees one crore, after his release on
provisional bail, granted vide order dated 10.10.2023, for which, "No Dues
Certificate" has been issued by the Bank on 09.01.2024. A photocopy of "No
Dues Certificate" dated 09.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure 'A' with IA No.
6656 of 2024.
6. The learned counsel has further submitted that appellant has
already undergone about 1 years and 5 months out of the maximum sentence
of five years. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no early
chance of hearing of this memo of appeal.
Arguments of learned counsel for union of India CBI, Anil Kumar,
Senior Counsel
7. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence and confirmation provisional bail and submitted first by referring to
certain prosecution witnesses. He has first and foremost taken us to the
evidence of PW-5, Phool Singh Meena, who was then posted as Chief
Manager,Allahabad Bank, Ramgarh Branch and his zonal office had directed
him to conduct enquiry for lapses committed in respect of sanction and
disbursement of loan to M/s. Bajrang Cold Storage. PW-5 had deposed that
during enquiry he had found that a term loan of Rs. 226.65 lakhs and CC loan
of Rs. 39 lakhs was sanctioned to M/s. Bajrang Cold Storage on the basis of
scrutiny of loan proposal sent by Sunil Mittal, the then Branch Manager and
Dhanu Barha, the then loan officer. On enquiry it was found that Main
Branch, Hazaribagh had not created mortgage of property as per the loan
sanctioned letter dated 20.10.2006. It was mentioned in the sanctioned letter
that property in the name of Ramtahal Mahto,Brij Kishore Mahto, Ajay
Kumar, Jaswa Devi, Ranjgu Mahto,Hanchi Devi, Basudeo Mahto, Khirodhar
Mahto, Karmi Devi and Nunia Devi were mortgaged by only Brij Kishore
Mahto, Ram Tahal Mahto, Hanchi Devi, Basudeo Mahto and Khirodhar
Mahto. This witness PW-5 had also deposed that during enquiry, he had
visited Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh Branch in December, 2009 and collected
the loan documents there and thereafter, he along with other bank officers
had visited village Sindoor, as the properties which were shown as mortgaged
were situated there. PW-5 had further deposed that when the loan became
NPA, notices were then sent under the SERFAESI Act to the guarantors Braj
Kishore Mahto, Nunia Devi and Khirodhar Mahto. However, in reply these
aforesaid three persons had made written representation that they neither
stood as guarantor and nor executed any mortgaged deed. Learned counsel
further submitted that it was found in the course of enquiry that properties of
deed no. 137 and 260 have been shown mortgaged by Brij Kishore
Mahto,but, actually it has not been mortgaged by Brij Kishore Mahto, as the
photograph of Brij Kishore Mahto was not fixed on the said document, rather
photograph of Bhudan Mahto, father of the accused Mahadeo Prasad was
fixed. Learned counsel for the CBI at this stage submits that it is to be noted
that this appellant alongwith other accused persons have been convicted
along with section 120 B IPC and though these evidence began with the
prime reference to the accused Sunil Mittal, the then branch manager,but,
conspiracies were all done together with other co-accused persons leading to
defrauding the bank and thus leading to loss of money. Learned counsel for
the CBI further submitted that PW-5 had further deposed that during enquiry,
the sale deeds which had been shown mortgaged by Karmi Devi and Nunia
Devi were found to be fake, because Nunia Devi had expired in the year
1990. Further, on the sale deed, neither photograph of Karmi Devi nor Nunia
Devi were affixed, rather photographs of Hanchi Devi was fixed. Further, that
during enquiry Tahal Mahto, Prayag Prasad Mehta and Mahadeo Mehta had
made written representation to him that they had falsely mortgaged deed in
the name of Brij Kishore Mahto, Karni Devi and Nunia Devi. It was found
during enquiry that the cold storage was constructed on such inherited
property which was not mortaged as primary security. Whereas, it was
instruction of zonal office that such properties should be mortgaged but the
branch has not complied with the said instructions whereas the sale deed no.
16155 has been mortgaged by the branch.
8. Learned counsel for the CBI then referred to the evidence of PW-6
Ajit Mahto, who is a farmer and he is also the brother of Khamman Mahto
and name of the wife of Khamman Mahto is late Karmi Devi, who had
expired in the year 1990. This witness has deposed that name of his wife is
Nunia Devi and in 1978, several plots measuring about 1.5 acres in Khata
No. 18 was purchased in the name of his wife Nunia Devi and Karmi Devi
from Nunu Mahto and Sahdeo Mahto. He further deposed that they had
neither sold nor leased out aforesaid land to Ram Tahal Mahto for
construction of cold storage. His wife and his Bhabhi Karmi Devi never
stood as guarantors for the loan of the said cold storage. No one from
Allahabad Bank had ever come to him for enquiry regarding standing as
guarantor of loan. Upon perusal for the document marked for identification as
'X', PW-6 had deposed that this leased deed has neither been executed by his
wife or nor by his bhabhi Karmi Devi in the year 2006, because Karmi Devi
had expired in the year 1990. Further with regard to the sale deed no. 16155,
which has been marked as Ext.-13/2, PW-6 deposed that it is a forged sale
deed and it has not been exhibited either by his wife or his bhabhi. This
witness has further deposed that the photograph of the woman affixed on the
said sale deed in the name of Nunia Devi is not of his wife and the second
photograph affixed in the name of Karmi Devi is not the photograph of his
bhabhi, since Karmi Devi had expired in the year 1990, so question does not
arise as to the execution of the said sale deed. Learned counsel for the CBI
here said therefore, that it is apparent from the evidence of both PW-5 and
PW-6 the extent and nature of fraud and deception which has been committed
against the bank leading to the loss of money and unlawful gain.
9. Learned counsel for the CBI then referred to evidence of PW-7 Brij
Kishore Mahto, the surpanch of Sindoor Panchayat and he knew Ram Tahal
Mahto, who is his neighbour. PW-7 had deposed that Ram Tahal Mahto had
established M/s Bajrang Cold Storage, in his village. Ram Tahal Mahto had
obtained loan from Allahabad Bank, Hazaribagh. Ajay Kumar, Prayag Mehta
and Mahadeo Prasad Mahto, all residents of village Tilir and Ram Tahal
Mahto together were partners in the aforesaid firm. PW-7 has deposed that he
knew late Rangu Mahto. Late Rangu Mahto had two sons whose names were
Khamman Mahto and Ajit Mahto and they both are alive. The name of
Khamman Mahto's wife is late Karmi Devi, who expired around 20 years
back. Khamman Mahto is blessed with two sons namely Mahendra Prasad
and Damodor Mahto. Ajit Mahto's wife is Nunia Devi and they both are
alive. He further deposed that he is not having any account in Allahabad
bank, Hazaribagh and that he has never stood as guarantor in the said bank
and he had never stood as a guarantor for loan to M/s. Bajrang Cold Storage,
for the loan gurated by Allahabad Bank Hazaribagh. It was deposed by PW-7,
that he has received a notice from bank in November 2009 and then he had
come to know that he had been shown as a guarantor in the loan given in the
name of M/s. Bajrang Cold Storage. Thereafter, he had visited the bank and
enquired about it that he had been made a guarantor. The officer of the bank
had informed him that two original deeds have been submitted in the bank in
the form of mortgage. This witness had further deposed that aforesaid two
sale deed were given to Ram Tahal Mahto in the year 2006 by his son for
the sanction of the housing loan in the name of Nirmal Mahto and the bank
had not sanctioned the housing loan. PW-7 had demanded the said deed
several times from Ram Tahal Mahto but he didn't return the same making
excuses. Learned counsel therefore says that here also the fraud and
deception can be made out and whose name was used for committing the
fraud and deception to the extent that even names of wrong persons were
given and also the dead persons. Here counsel says that Ram Tahal Mahto
had by deception taken the general sale deeds from these witnesses and not
returned the same and used it for getting loan illegally.
10. Learned counsel for the CBI has then referred to the evidence of PW-8,
who is Mahendra Prasad Mehta, who was then working as a peon in PWD,
RCD, Hazaribagh, during the year 2010. He had deposed that the name of his
father is Khamman Mahto and his mother's name is late Karmi Devi. The
name of his aunt is Nunia Devi and his uncle name is Ajit Mahto. He further
deposed that his mother and aunt had never sold or leased any land to Ram
Tahal Mahto and they had never stood as guarantor in loan sanctioned by the
Allahabad Bank. He came to know about such facts only when the notice of
the bank was served in November 2010, upon him. His mother had already
expired in the year 1990. On the perusal of lease deed no. 19663 dated
12.09.2006 marked for identification "X", he says that this lease deed had
neither been executed by his mother nor by his aunt because his mother died
in the year 1990, so it was simply not possible for her to execute in the year
2006. Further, the sale deed No. 16155 dated 2.11.2006, is a forged sale deed
because neither his mother nor his mother nor his aunt executed the deed and
the photograph affixed on it were neither of his aunt. The photograph affixed
on the document is of another lady. He further deposed that in the said sale
deed Aajit Mahto has been shown as late whereas he is still alive. PW-8
further deposed that his mother never visited Allahabad Bank, Main Branch,
Hazaribag to execute any lease deed and that further no one from the bank
had come to enquire whether they stood as guarantor or not and it was only
when the notice from the bank was received by him then it came to his
knowledge that his mother was shown as guarantor of loan.
11. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the evidence of these
aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for exposing and convicting the appellant.
He further submits that it is clear cut that genuine deeds deceitfully extracted
much earlier was then illegally misused for purpose of getting loans on
mortgage, based on such documentation the persons in whose names such
deeds belonged to were misused by affixing photos of other persons and even
showing such persons as alive when they were already dead. Counsel says
that what is to be seen is chain of circumstances and the link that is to be
made and that is fully linked and completed. He says that the loan was shown
to be taken by this appellant but it was sanctioned and approved by Sunil
Mittal which shows that all the accused persons were involved in forgery and
deceptions in a conspiracy to defraud the bank and therefore they are all fully
accountable and equally guilty and the conviction has been rightly made and
therefore there can be no question for suspension of sentence or confirming
of provisional bail to this appellant.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since bail of
other convicted Sunil Mittal and Kuldip Verma had been previously rejected
the applications for suspension of sentence or confirming the provisional bail
to this appellant may also be rejected. Learned counsel also submits that the
payment which has been paid due to compromise settlement does not
obliterate or change the nature of allegations or the crimes committed. The
one time settlement or compromise settlement is between the bank, other
convicted persons and the appellant herein but the offence is against the
public and society at large and the payments or compromise settlements
cannot be related to this crime against the public or society at large in which
forgery has been done for unlawful gain.
13. On going through the records of the case, I find that during the
pendency of the IA No. 9006 of 2022, the appellant filed IA No. 9270 of
2023, which was for grant of provisional bail during the pendency of this
appeal.
14. In between and thereafter the following orders were passed by this
Court:-
On 10.10.2023 the following order was passed by this Court:
"06/10.10.2023
When the case is called out, Mr. Rahul Pandey, the learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned, ASGI for the
respondent and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the Bank
have appeared.
By way of I.A. No. 9270 of 2023, the appellant named above
prays for grant of provisional bail during the pendency of instant
Appeal which has been directed against the judgment dated
26.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 28.07.2022 passed in R.C.
01(S)/2010-AHD-R, corresponds to FIR No. R.C. 01 (S)/2010-
AHD-R, SPE/CBI/AHD passed by the learned court of learned
AJC-XVIII-cum- Spl. Judge, C.B.I., at Ranchi.
The appellant has also moved for suspension of sentence
and now thereafter he is moving for provisional bail by way of I.A.
No. 9270 of 2023.
The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out
Annexure- B which he has indicated as compromise settlement or
OTS in which he was directed to deposit as under:
1. The entire compromise sum will be paid in the following manner
a. Rs. 15.00 Lacs already deposited in "No Lien A/c" stands
adjusted
b. The balance amount of Rs. 85.00 Lacs will be paid in by
December 2023 as per the repayment schedule-
Rs 15.00 Lakh By August 2023
Rs 15.00 Lakh By September 2023
Rs 15.00 Lakh By October 2023
Rs. 20.00 Lakh By November 2023
Rs. 20.00 Lakh By December 2023
It is further pointed out that there was failure to adhere to
the aforesaid terms but now the counsel for the appellant has
submitted that he is willing to pay the entire money of Rs. 85.00
Lakh by the end of December, moreover by the end of October. 2023
he is willing to pay Rs. 45.00 Lakh and then the remaining amount
of Rs. 40.00 Lakh will be paid in the two installments, the first
installment of Rs. 20.00 Lakh will be paid by the end of November,
2023 and the second installment of Rs. 20.00 Lakh will be paid by
the end of December, 2023.
The learned ASGI as well as the learned counsel for the
Bank have put the objection and also submitted that normally it
would be considered the OTS settlement has been broken when they
had not paid the amount and therefore there needs to be revival of
terms and conditions or interest that is to be paid even if they
agreed to pay by 30th October, 2023. The bank will be at liberty to
process the dues that remained to be paid, in future.
In view of the submissions made today and also the contents
of the IA No. 9270 of 2023, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant,
above named, on provisional bail till 04.01.2024, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned AJC-
XVIII-cum- Spl. Judge, C.B.I., at Ranchi in connection with R.C.
01(S)/2010-AHD-R, corresponds to FIR No. R.C. 01 (S)/2010-AHD-
R, SPE/CBI/AHD.
Accordingly, IA No. 9270 of 2023 stands disposed of."
15. On 01.12.2023 the following order was passed by this Court:
"08/01.12.2023
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
As per the Court's order dated 10.10.2023 in IA No. 9270 of
2023 which was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 629 of 2022, in I.A. No.
9313 of 2023 which was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 667 of 2022 and
in I.A. No. 9337 of 2023 which was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of
2022 which were moved for the grant of provisional bail, the
appellants were granted provisional bail, therein the schedule of
payments of Rs. 85.00 Lacs was indicated. By the end of October,
2023 the payment of Rs. 45.00 Lakh would be made and then the
remaining amount of Rs. 40.00 Lakh will be paid in two installment,
the first installment of Rs. 20.00 Lakh will be paid by the end of
November 2023 and the second installment of Rs. 20.00 Lakh will be
paid by the end of December, 2023.
On 29.11.2023, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that part of the agreed amount which was to be paid by the
end of November has been paid and some amount is still required to
be paid and therefore they seek adjournment. Thereafter the matter
was posted today i.e. 01.12.2023.
On the last date the counsels for the appellants were directed
to bring on record the receipt of payments which have been made, by
filing affidavit. No receipts of payments have been filed through the
affidavit as yet. Moreover, the submissions made on the last date i.e.
on 29.11.2023 that part of the agreed amount which was to be paid by
the end of November has been paid would be a wrong statement, in
view of that has been submitted today in that it is submitted that they
have paid Rs. 30.00 Lakh of that Rs. 45.00 Lakh that was to be paid
by the end of October, 2023. That means the schedule as indicated has
already been set aside and not only the payments of October, 2023 is
yet to be completed, the amount of November and December, 2023 of
Rs. 20.00 Lakh each is to be paid and the appellants seeking for
further time.
Accordingly, list these cases on 15th December 2023 by which
date the amount of Rs. 65.00 Lakh should be paid considering that
they have already fallen behind the schedule that was already given to
them as per their undertaking. Failing payment of Rs. 65.00 Lakh by
15 December 2023 which has to be demonstrated by filing equivalent
affidavit, the matter will be taken up on 15.12.2023 and heard on
merits.
Accordingly, put up these cases on 15.12.2023."
16. Thereafter from 15.12.2023 till 05.07.2024 these matter was heard
briefly and case was adjourned on prayer of the learned counsels.
17. By order No.09 of 15th December, 2023 the Court observed and
directed as follows:
"Order No.09/Dated: 15th December, 2023
When the matters were called out, the learned counsels for
the parties have appeared.
Mr. Ankit Apurva, the learned counsel who appears for Ram
Tahal Mahto, the appellant in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 629 of 2022
submits that as per order dated 01.12.2023 the amount of Rs. 65.00
Lakh was directed to be paid and to that effect an affidavit was
directed to be filed. He further submits that amount of Rs. 65.00
Lakh has been paid today itself but affidavit in this regard could not
be filed. However, he has filed three receipts showing deposit of
10,00,000/-, 5,00,000/- and 20,00,000/- in the concerned bank today
itself.
Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI has submitted that affidavit
has not been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding
payments which has been made. He has objected the procedure
adopted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the fact that amount has been deposited, these
matters are adjourned to be listed on 04.1.2024 by which they are
directed to deposit entire agreed amount and file an affidavit."
18. Then by order No. 10 dated 05.01.2024 this Court observed and
directed as follows:
"Order No.10/Dated: 5th January, 2024
When the matters were called out, the learned
counsels for the parties have appeared.
Mr. Rahul Pandey, the learned counsel who appears
for Ram Tahal Mahto, the appellant in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 629 of
2022 submits that out of total 85 Lacs which was directed to be
paid by December, 2023, 81 Lacs have been paid and he would like
to file an affidavit in this regard. He has submitted that only 4 Lacs
remains.
It is noted that many adjournments have already
been granted to the appellants in view of dilly-dallying attitude of
the appellants in making payments.
Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI has submitted
that misconduct of the appellants need to be noted and they should
be duly punitively addressed for the same because they have been
testing the patience of the Court. He has further submitted that the
last date to surrender was 04.1.2024 and, therefore, they should
now be directed to surrender and then the application for
suspension of sentence may be heard on merits, particularly, in
view of the fact that prayer for suspension of sentence of two of the
co-convicts have already been rejected.
In view of the fact that out of total amount, 4 Lacs is
yet to be deposited, hence, these matters are adjourned to be listed
on 12.01.2024 by which they are directed to deposit remaining
amount and file an affidavit
Till then, provisional bail granted to the appellant
vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 9270 of 2023 which
was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 629 of 2022, I.A. No. 9313 of 2023
which was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 667 of 2022 and I.A. No.
9337 of 2023 which was filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2022 is
extended till the next date of listing.
Put up these cases on 12.1.2024 as first case."
19. Fact remains that appellant was granted provisional bail vide order
dated 10.10.2023 in IA No. 9270 of 2023. Further, the provisional bail
granted to the appellant, Ram Tahal Mahto was extended many times.
20. Meanwhile, IA No. 6656 of 2024 under section 389 of Cr.P.C. was
filed on behalf of Ram Tahal Mahto for confirmation of provisional bail
granted vide order 10.10.2023 in I.A No. 9270 of 2023.
21. I have noted that the appellant has entered into a compromise
settlement/ one time settlement with the Bank and settled the loan account by
paying rupees one crore, after his release on provisional bail, granted vide
order dated 10.10.2023, for which, "No Dues Certificate" has been issued by
the Bank on 09.01.2024. A photocopy of "No Dues Certificate" dated
09.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure 'A' with IA No. 6656 of 2024. I have also
noted that the appellant has been in custody for about 01 year 05 months and
hence, has spent considerable period in custody.
22. So, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I confirm and make
absolute the provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated
10.10.2023 in I.A.No. 9270 of 2023.
23. Hence, I.A. No. 6656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 9006 of 2022 are allowed
and disposed of.
SB/KNR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
