PANKAJ VIJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 314 of 2016, dated 06.10.2016, under Sections 467 , 468 , 471 , 420 , 403 , 422 , 465 and 120 IPC, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 06.10.2016, police received a communication from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, whereby complaint of complainant (Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Nurpur) was forwarded for investigating the matter. As per the allegations made in the complaint, after receipt of application for grant of loan by accused No. 1 Sameer Sood, loan of Rs.13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lac) was granted to him for purchase of crane. The crane was to be purchased from M/s Jai gurdev Autos (Dealer, Matour, Tehsil and District Kangra) (petitioner) for the sum of Rs.16,80,000/- (sixteen lac eighty thousand). Accused No. 1 also submitted receipt qua payment of margin money, thus loan amount of Rs.13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lac) was disbursed on 18.02.2014 through RTGS to account No. 140605500010 with ICICI Bank, Kangra Branch, which is on the name of M/s Jai Gurdev Auto. Accused No. 1 (borrower) did not submit insurance, RC etc. and when he was communicated, the letters were undelivered. On 27.06.2014 accused No. 1 visited the branch of the bank and informed that machinery has not been delivered to him and the same will be supplied within 45/60 days. Accused No. 1 again visited the bank on 21.10.2014 and deposited Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lac) in the loan account and he also assured that he will try to get the money refunded from the dealer. However, since then the accused No. 1 and the petitioner are not traceable. Thus, accused No. 1 and the petitioner cheated the bank. In the wake of the circumstances as above, the complainant, tried to lodge a complaint with the police, but SHO, Nurpur, did not register the case and advised the complainant to file a recovery suit. Hence, the complainant approached the Court and the Court ordered investigation in the matter.