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.
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.
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.
