Judgment · High Court

earlier rejected by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30258 of 2006 by order, dated 14.09.2006. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. It has been submitted that after rejection of the earlier prayer, some developments have taken place, which needs consideration.

I do not think that second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioners can be entertained as no such observation was earlier given at the time of rejection of petitioners application for anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected.

However, there is statement in the present application regarding admission on behalf of the Bank of those documents which were earlier denied by Bank by filing counter affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 30258 of 2006. Admission of these documents as 2 security for grant of loan indicates that petitioners enjoyed privilege of loan not without furnishing security, but, they furnished documents relating to their property for such sanction loan. After disposal of anticipatory bail application considering issuance of notice by the Bank under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioners have filed their proposal under Section 13(4) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Cr. Misc. No. 22012 of 2007 was also filed by petitioners in which also notice has been issued to the Bank.

Considering these developments, it seems proper that in case the petitioners, Deep Narayan @ Deep Narayan Alani, Topan Das and Kamal Kumar @ Ganga Ram, surrender before the concerned Court, their prayer for grant of bail in connection with R.C. 7(A) of 2000 (Spl. Case No. 3 of 2000) should be decided in accordance with law taking into consideration the developments which have taken placed after rejection of petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )