NABAB ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated by the police. On the other hand, learned Addl. GA while opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant along with co- accused got prepared the forged documents and also got sanctioned a loan in the name of complainant Kapoor Singh of Rs.20.00 lacs, while the complainant was only desirous to take Rs.2.50 lacs. He further submitted that even from this Rs.2.50 lacs, Rs.20,000/- of commission was deducted and only Rs.2.30 lacs were actually paid to the complainant by the accused. He further submitted that the complainant is only the owner of 2.25 acres of land while there is no land in the name of his son. The complainant in the month of July 2009 wanted to take loan of Rs.2.50 lacs. In September 2009, the complainant and his son came at Punjab National Bank Jaspur along with Khatauni and copy of ration card, where Ram Lal, neighbor of complainant, met him and got him introduced to Nabab Ali (present applicant) and Sher Khan. He further submitted that these accused, by assuring him to get the loan sanctioned, in connivance with the bank officials, got the signatures of complainant and his son and took Rs.20.00 lacs as loan towards purchase of a Tractor and other works. He further submitted that the applicant along with co-accused obtained two Tractors in the name of complainant and his son Mangal Singh, however as per revenue records, Mangal Singh has no land in District US Nagar. He further submitted that when the forgery committed by the present applicant came into the knowledge of the complainant, he lodged the FIR on 2.8.2010. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. collected the papers of loan from the Bank as well as Auto Mobile Agency. He further submitted that the as per the letter issued by Neha Automobile Company dated 8.10.10, it is mentioned that the applicant is not working in the above noted Agency. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. also recorded the statements of Kapoor Singh and Mangal Singh, who in their statements, have amply corroborated the prosecution story. He further submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant that he has committed the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC.

(3.) Having considered the above-said facts and circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and the forgery committed by the applicant along with co-accused that the complainant was deceived for Rs.17.50 lacs, as such looking to the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail.