Kavita vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3996 MP

                                  1                           MCRC-29519-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-29519-2021
                    (KAVITA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

4
Indore, Dated : 05-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Viraj Godha, learned counsel for the State.
      This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the
applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with crime

No.264/2019 registered at P.S. Juni Indore, Indore for the offence punishable
under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.
      Applicant is Panel Lawyer of Punjab National Bank who had given the
favourable report in respect of loan sought by co-accused Anand Kasera who
had been disbursed the loan of Rs. 2.5 Crores on the basis of various
factors, one of which was the search report conducted by the present
applicant.
      Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the memorandum of
Anand Kasera, there is no mention of involvement of present applicant as one

of conspirator. There is no other evidence to show conspiracy on the part of
the applicant. Learned counsel has taken recourse to the judgment which is
not placed on record and will be furnished shortly, in which it has been laid
down that Panel lawyer must be shown to be an active participant for
defrauding bank.     Learned counsel further states that search report in
prescribed format had been furnished by the Bank and all procedural aspects
have been adhered to. On this ground, anticipatory bail has been sought.
      Learned counsel for State was heard who has submitted that search
report shows negligence on the part of applicant because had the title of the
mortgaged property been searched properly, it would have come to the
knowledge of the applicant that land was infact purchased by the complainant
on 28.1.2016 whereas the search report is dated 15.7.2016.
                                   2                           MCRC-29519-2021
      To this, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant had
applied for obtaining the sale deed in relation to mortgaged land from the
Registrar office and the Registrar office did not send the sale deed dated
28.1.2016

, and therefore, the documents which were made over to the applicant, formed the basis of hear search report. The aforesaid application

on the basis of which the Registrar Office had provided the sale deed, along with the receipt thereof, has been destroyed as per the response of RTI Officer, District Registrar, Indore and this letter has been placed on record.

Learned counsel for State has submitted that had the applicant been alert, the applicant would have been able to obtain the chain of transactions pertaining to mortgaged land and it would have been exposed that the land was in the ownership of the complainant.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that mere negligence is not a pointer to the conspiracy and the applicant has been the Panel Lawyer of not only Punjab National Bank but also Union Bank and Uco Bank and there has been no antecedents on her part showing similar lapses.

Considered.

It would be appropriate to peruse the case diary. The order shall be passed after perusing the case diary and citation which has not yet been filed for perusal before this Court.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Lateron Case diary was perused.

There is no material on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the conspiracy to defraud the bank by knowingly giving search report regarding documents which were known to her as forged documents. If there was negligence at all on the part of the applicant, there is nothing to indicate 3 MCRC-29519-2021 that it was done deliberately.

Similar orders have been passed on 28.11.2014 and 16.5.2018 in M.Cr.C.Nos.16168/2014 and 16628/2018 respectively which have been placed for perusal.

Learned counsel for applicant has also filed judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court delivered on 26.11.2019 in M.Cr.C.No. 1614/2017 (Subha Jakkanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) wherein a case registered against Panel Lawyer under similar circumstances has been quashed. The aforesaid judgment is based on the judgment of Supreme Court.

On due consideration of the aforesaid, however without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail

to the applicant. It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the applicant, applicant be released on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer/IO. She shall further abide by the other conditions as enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Applicant is also directed to appear before the I.O. on 11.8.2021 and on further dates as and when directed by the I.O. in that behalf and assist in the investigation.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE

MK

Digitally signed by SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL

SMT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF

MUKTA MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d5113389cae2680f9a64

KOUSHAL 4a283e4712f4e3a663a97c409a36 fa2c3274aef1bfd1, cn=SMT MUKTA KOUSHAL Date: 2021.08.05 18:10:04 +05'30'