[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhash Sharma vs Central M.P. Gramin Bank on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10103
1 MCRC-5516-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5516 of 2026
SUBHASH SHARMA
Versus
CENTRAL M.P. GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - PP for the State.
Shri Dhirendra Singh Chouhan- Advocate for respondent No.1/Bank.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.482 of BNSS for
grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station-
Civil Lines, District- Morena , in connection with RCT No.209/2024 for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the |present applicant is working on
the post of Branch Manager in the Respondent Bank and the allegation
against the present applicant is that the property, which was mortgaged in the
bank was not the property belonging to the person who wanted to take loan
via mortgaging the property. The land of survey number 287/3 and 286/4 of
Village- Sherpur, Tehsil- Morena_ was mortgaged and the specific allegation
against the present applicant is that he was in conveyance with the other co-
accused and helped them in obtaining the loan by mortgaging the agriculture
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10103
2 MCRC-5516-2026
land. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken against him.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further contended that the
applicant is neither any beneficiary nor the main string of the chain. The
procedural regarding mortgaging of land to obtain a loan has a step wise set
up where the panel advocates of the concerned bank do physically verify the
property going to be mortgaged and only upon the search report submitted
by the aforesaid advocate, the present applicant under the capacity of
manager acted further and sanctioned the loan. It is further argued that it is
also found that the co-accused persons by way of fabricated documents had
mishandled the revenue records.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court
to order of the civil suit (at page 39, paragraph 27) and contended that in the
aforesaid order, the present applicant has been exonerated of the liabilities
and therein it has been held that the revenue entry itself was wrong on the
basis of which the loan has been granted.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further drawn attention of this
Court to Annexure A/6 (order of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur) and
contended that Branch Manager, was never expected to go to the office of
Sub-Registrar and personally verify each and every application submitted for
the purpose of land and satisfy himself that the documents pertaining to the
collateral security offered by the prospective beneficiaries were genuine. It is
precisely to obviate this difficulty that banks appoint Panel Lawyers who are
assigned the responsibility of going to the Sub-Registrar's office and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10103
3 MCRC-5516-2026
ascertain the genuineness of the documents put forth by the beneficiaries
along with their application for loan.
6. In this case no negative search report was presented by the panel
lawyer, therefore, acting upon the report of the panel lawyer, in good faith,
the present applicant performed his duties. It is also argued that the applicant
is a 69 years old retired citizen. He has not received any illegal financial
benefits, and it is a case of documentary evidence, hence, no recovery has to
be made from the present applicant. Hence, there is no requirement of further
custodial interrogation of the applicant and trial is likely to take long time to
conclude. Applicant is the permanent resident of District - Gwalior (M.P.)
and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the
prosecution evidence, if released on bail.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel
for the respondent No.1/Bank vehemently opposed the bail application and
prays for its rejection, submitting that, as per the case diary, there is
sufficient material available on record to lead to the prosecution towards the
involvement of the applicant.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
9. From careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that the KYC of the borrowers was done by the present applicant. This
court also finds that there are four other criminal antecedents against the
present applicant and surprisingly, in all these cases the
beneficiaries/borrowers are the same persons. The KYC, which was the sole
duty of the applicant was also done on the basis of the forged documents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10103
4 MCRC-5516-2026
10. Hence, considering the rival contentions, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, contents of the case diary, nature of offence and
amount of embezzlement coupled with the role attributable to the present
applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that requirement of the
custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out. Hence, this Court is not inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
11.. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
