UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case of cheating and forgery was lodged on the allegation that cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 1 crore was extended to M/s. Laxmi Ore Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on deposit of two sale-deeds as collateral securities creating equitable mortgage of the properties covered under the said sale deeds but the borrower never paid the amount and that when the Bank in the event of nonpayment of loan amount tried to take possession of the property mortgaged, it was detected that the property was not belonging to the guarantor, rather the guarantor had produced a deed which was tampered one. In that manner, bank was cheated and hence, case was lodged.

(2.) The petitioner being apprehensive of being arrested moved first to the Court of Sessions and then to this Court for grant of anticipatory bail wherein submission was advanced before the Court that the Bank has settled the dispute whereby the petitioner, as per the schedule of payment, was supposed to liquidate the loan amount and pursuant to that, even a sum of Rs 25 lakhs was deposited and will go on depositing the amount, as per the agreement and that the petitioner would even furnish another sale-deed by way of collateral security. The Court taking into consideration the submissions granted bail to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not pay a single farthing after the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail nor any original document towards collateral security was furnished and moreover, there had been no agreement in between the petitioner and the Bank as had been put forth on behalf of the petitioner and that in course of hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition, statement was again made by the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 is ready to pay off the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,05.00.000/- but at the first occasion, a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs would be paid. On such proposal, stand was taken by the petitioner-Bank that if a sum of Rs.25 lakhs is deposited, proposal of the settlement given by the petitioner would be transmitted to the competent authority to take decision in this regard. But now the opposite party No. 2 has come with the statement that he failed to honour his commitment made before this Court as on account of being failed in having loan of Rs. 25 lakhs from other institution, the said amount could not be deposited.

(3.) As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that there had been no settlement in between the petitioner and the Bank gets falsified from a letter dated 11.7.2008 written by the Bank to the petitioner intimating therein that in terms of the discussion, the petitioner would be allowed to open a current account and the proceeds would be route through the account so that 4% on every credit transaction in the current account be deducted and be credited in the account which was declared as NPA account and that even sale-deed had been deposited but the Bank never intimated about its acceptance and under this situation, the petition filed for cancellation of bail is fit to be rejected.