NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 06(S)/2014­EOW­R registered for the offence under section 120B read with section 406, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of prospection, in short, is that, this case has been lodged on the basis of written informant dated 02.05.2014 of Vimal Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Officer, Bagroy Market, Main Road Ranchi alleging therein that a criminal conspiracy was hatched up. The petitioner who is proprietor of M/s Shiva Construction, & Co. obtained cash credit facility of Rs. 50 lakhs on 30.09.2009 which was subsequently extended to Rs. 80 lakhs on 04.06.2010 and Rs. 150 lakhs on 10.01.2011 and Rs. 250 lakhs on 06.08.2011 and as per request a term loan of Rs. 139.86 lakhs was sanctioned to M/s Shiva Construction & Co. on 31.12.2011 by Circle Office at Ranchi on the basis of fake and fabricated sale deeds Smt. Meera Devi and M/s ARN Infrastructure through its partners Narendra Kumar Srivastava (petitioner, Amrendra Kumar Singh and Rakesh Kapoor were guarantors of this credit loan facility. The petitioenr submitted a fake and fabricated sale deed no. 3416 dated 14.05.1986 and sale deed no. 1117 dated 23.02.1998 and other fake documents, mutation correction slips and rent receipts of the said sale deed pertaining to sale deed no. 1659 and 1660 dated 03.03.2011 of M/s ARN Infrastructure as collateral securities in the Bank and accused persons including this petitioner hatched criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of said conspiracy obtained loan. It is further alleged that during investigation, it was found that the sale deed no. 3416 and sale deed no. 117 which have been deposited by the petitioner were found to be fake and fabricated and mutation correction slip and government receipts have been found to be fake and fabricated. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that police after investigation submitted final form thereafter cognizance has been taken by the trial court. The account of the petitioner had been running in very good conditions and his business was running very well from 2008 to 2013 due to the bad market condition, the petitioner's loan account became irregular and was finally declared non­performing Asset (NPA). Further, it has been submitted that C.B.I in the Charge­sheet has mentioned that the sale deed no. 1659 dated 03.03.2011 is genuine but the land which is the subject matter of the said sale­ deed belongs to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation as informed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 29.09.2014 and 24.11.2014. The mother of the petitioner namely, Shyal Devi since deceased had purchased a plot of land measuring an area of 2.72 acres under khata no. 19 situated in village Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, East Singhbhum from Raju Gaud on 30th April, 1958 by virtue of an unregistered deed of sale and on the ame day had also purchased an area of 0.58 acres of land under plot no. 3742, khata no. 21 of village Baridih and an area of 1.04 acres of land under khata no. 33, plot no. 3718, total area of land including both plots whereof is 1.62 acres from the rightful owner namely, Shatrughan Gaud by virtue of unregistered deed of sale and came in actual physical cultivating possession over the lands along with her husband and sons. Further, it has been submitted that Title Suit No. 153 of 1992 was decreed on contest with cost against the defendants BSRTC and the possession of Smt. Shyal Devi was confirmed over the suit land and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff vide judgment and order dated 18.02.1999. Thereafter, the defendant Divisional Manager, BSRTC being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 153 of 1992, preferred a Title Appeal No. 20 of 1999 which was heard and adjudicated by the trial court. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the evidence available on record dismissed the said Title Appeal No. 20 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2005. Thereafter, Bihar State Raod Transport Corporation Baridih Depot preferred a Second Appeal vide S.A. No. 357 of 2005 in this Hon'ble Court. Further, it has been submitted that being aggrieved by the order rejecting the petition under section 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 2081 of 2015 in which the Hon'ble court has observed as under: