A.N.MAHESH Vs. STATE REP. BY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b) , 467 , 468 , 471 , 409 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons conspired together, by which 11 beneficiaries got sanctioned for agricultural small-scale industries loan to start poultry farms and thereby caused loss to the tune of more than Rs.33,00,00,000/- to the defacto complainant, namely Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Coimbatore.

(3.) Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. According to the case of the prosecution, he was found visiting the bank frequently though he was not an account holder of the defacto complainant bank. He was also found from the surveillance camera by the defacto complainant, of his frequent visit to the bank. Other than these allegations, no specific allegations as against the petitioner, even in the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner acted as mediator between the borrowers and the bank and obtained loan to the benefeciaries. The properties which were given as collateral security were valued higher than the market value, and thereby the funds were diverted to the petitioner and the first accused. Therefore, the entire allegations are based upon the documents and the only evidence against the petitioner available is that he introduced borrowers to the bankers. In fact, the investigation found no evidence as against the petitioner as if he played role in the alleged transactions between the Manager and the other borrowers.