RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the pet i inner contends that he is the sole proprietor of Arora Boot House in which the main accused Jagdish Mittar worked as its employee, lie pointed out that Jagdish Miller had applied for a loan from HDFC, Ludhiana. In July, 2000, he got rupees 9 lacs as loan by way of Account Payee demand draft which he had deposited in his account with Union Bank of India, at Moga. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that along with his loan application, the said Jagdish Milter had attached the income-tax return, profit and loss statement and the balance sheet of the said concern. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that said Jagdish Mitter had also produced an agreement to sell in his favour, and also filed an undertaking to mortgage the said property (covered by the agreement for sale) after purchasing the same, apart from a letter of guarantee of one Satish Kumar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein is neither a surety nor a guarantor nor the beneficiary of the loan and therefore he has no concern whatsoever with this loan transaction which Jagdish Mitter had with HDFC, Ludhiana. He also contends that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had accompanied the said Jagdish Mitter when he was approaching the HDFC for getting the loan. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has joined investigation which is also confirmed by the learned counsel for the State.

(3.) In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the (sic), I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.