ASHOK KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. Petitioners in both these applications are accused in RC No. 7-A of 2000, Special Case No. 3 of 2000. Petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gautarn, was the Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Muzaffarpur Branch, at the relevant time when occurrence had taken place. Petitioners, Deep Narayan @ Deep Narayan Alani, Topan Das, Kamal Kumar @ Ganga Ram and Smt. Rita Devi, are alleged to have taken loan from Punjab and Sind Bank, Muzaffarpur Branch, amounting to Rs. 44,26,000/- with an intention to cheat the Bank. The loan was sanctioned to them in pursuance of conspiracy with Ashok Kumar Gautam on different dates under different heads of loan without taking proper security and sureties, during the period 1988-99. Ashok Kumar Gautam was in custody and he was allowed provisional bail by order, dated 16.5.2006, as the undertaking was given by him that after being released on provisional bail he will make all efforts for realisation of maximum amount of loan. All other petitioners have filed their application for anticipatory bail.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners (borrowers) have submitted that they being A+ borrowers with sound transactions approached the Bank and availed various facilities. The loans were sanctioned by the various Branch Managers of Punjab and Sind Bank, Muzaffarpur, including Ashok Kumar Gautam and Zonal Manager of the Bank at Calcutta. They followed all procedures in availing loan and over draft facilities. They also provided requisite security in the form of fixed deposits, National Saving Certificate, Indira Vikas Patra and collateral title deeds of property for sanction of loan. During the relevant period of 1988-99, the monthly, quarterly and half yearly audit of the Branch Office was done by the Company Auditors and the statement of the account were sent to the concerned higher officials of the Bank. No irregularity or fraudulent activities were detected which was against the interest of the Bank. The allegation that Ashok Kumar Gautam extended loans and facilities of overdraft to the petitioners without any security is incorrect. In fact, adequate and sufficient security were given to the Bank by the petitioners. A certificate to this effect had been issued by the officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Muzaffarpur. Deeds of six properties of the petitioners were deposited with the Bank which is in possession of the Bank. The loans and advances were secured and it was falsely and maliciously been alleged that the loans and overdrafts were unsecured.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that if the deeds of the properties mortgaged with the Bank is not recognized by the Bank, in that case they may be permitted to sell those properties. These are valuable properties and the petitioners in that case will be able to repay principal as well as the interest amount, outstanding dues against them. Petitioners have annexed the list of security deposited by them with the Bank in order to secure the loan.