1
MHNS010041432022
Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 962/2022.
1.
This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438
of Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I157/2022 registered against applicant Prem
Jagumal Karada at Gangapur Police Station for the offence punishable
under sections 406, 409, 468, 447, 469, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal
Code.
2.
It is the case of the prosecution that complainant is the owner
of plot no. 23 in survey no. 48 which they had mortgaged to Union Bank
of India in the year 2003 yet accused by preparing false documents have
auction the said property in the year 2007.
3.
It is contended by the applicant that he is permanent resident
of the address doing construction business. Applicant has moved
anticipatory bail application prior in which interim protection was granted
to him however the offence was transferred to Gangapur P.S. so the
applicant withdrew the said application. Complainant entered into
agreement to sale with Naresh Karada for Rs.17,58,900/. At the time of
execution of the document sum of Rs.5,86,300/ was paid and the
remaining amount was agreed to be paid later on. It was averred by the
complainant that the said property was without encumbrance, however,
they received notice that the property is to be seized at that time Naresh
Karada realize that prior to entering into sale deed complainant had taken
loan from the bank which was withheld from them. As the loan amount
2
was not repaid notice was received and it was seized as per Sarfaesi Act,
2002. Paper publication was made by the bank for issuing tender notice
for purchasing the property under Sarfaesi Act. The said document was
executed on 04.09.2008. Even Naresh Karada has filed SCS No. 86/2008
for specific performance and complainant has filed application No.
85/2007 at DRT, Mumbai.
Against the judgment appeal was also
preferred before Hon’ble High Court bearing No. 5446/2014 which is
pending. Offence is of serious nature. Applicant as well as Naresh Karada
has been cheated financially.
Applicant has been falsely implicated,
hence, prayed that bail be granted as he is ready to abide by all the terms
and conditions.
4.
Say was called of Investigating Officer he has objected this
application on the count that offence was transferred to NashikRoad P.S.
in view of provision under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Gangapur P.S.
Accused have given public notice on 18.10.2007 for public auction on
23.11.2007, however, accused no. 1 i.e. the bank prior to the public
auction gave confirmation to sale of the property to accused no. 2. This
reflects that there was a big financial dealing between the accused and the
bank by which complainant was cheated. Offence is serious in nature.
Accused no. 2 to 4 are from construction business. Possibility cannot be
ruled out that serious offences are committed in Nashik city and other
places in connivance with the bank authorities. Applicant is required to be
arrested for inquiring where the forged document were prepared for
cheating the complainant and who help them.
Main accused of this
offence i.e. officers of Union Bank of India and its officers are hiding and
whereabouts of which are known to the present accused. If accused is
released on bail the main accused will not be found, hence, prayed that
application be rejected.
3
5.
On perusing the FIR it is seen that property owned by the
complainant even though it was mortgage with the bank public auction
was made and has been sold. It appears that litigation are pending with
respect to the suit property.
Advocate of the applicant has filed
documents today with respect to the SCS No. 83/2008 and W.P. bearing
No. 5446/2014 which has been filed by Naresh Karada and Prem Karada
respectively.
However, the complainant has submitted that WP No.
4112/2019 has been cancelled. Whereas appeal has been preferred
against SCS No. 83/2008.
It is contended by the accused that
complainant has withheld from him that he had taken loan from the bank
prior to executing the agreement of sale. Investigating officer has
submitted that accused have given public notice on 18.10.2007 for public
auction on 23.11.2007, however, accused no. 1 i.e. the bank prior to the
public auction gave confirmation to sale the property to accused no. 2.
This reflects that there was financial dealing between the accused and the
bank and complainant was cheated. The whereabouts of the bank is
known to the present applicant. Detail investigation is required for which
custody of the applicant is required. Nothing has been brought to show
that he has been falsely implicated. Thus, considering the nature of
allegations, primafacie case is not made out by applicant for grant of pre
arrest bail. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Nashik.
Date : 11/08/2022.
Sd/xxx
(V.S.MalkalpatteReddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.