High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) {aba924.24}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 924 OF 2024SHWETA W/O ABHISHEK JAISWALVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERWITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4176 OF 2024 IN ABA/924/2024SHAIKH FUZEL AHMED S/O SHAIKH ZUBER AHMED AND OTHERVERSUSSHWETA W/O ABHISHEK JAISWALAND OTHERSMr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant.Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for assist to APP.Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for the respondent-State.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:23.10.2024PC :-01.This application is filed seeking bail of the applicant in theevent of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 61 dated 26.04.2024,registered with Vedant Nagar Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for theoffences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 readwith section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant happens to bewife of the main accused, namely, Abhishek Jagdish Jaiswal. ( 2 ) {aba924.24}02.The FIR came to be lodged by one Rajendra Namdeo Jadhav,Recovery Officer of the bank, namely, Malkapur Urban Co-operative BankLimited, Malkapur. The allegations are that the accused No.1 obtainedloan from Jawahar Colony Branch of the bank by submitting necessarydocuments. He also furnished copy of a sale-deed dated 31.12.2018bearing No.12777/2918 in respect of CTS No.17850/2 of Samarth Nagarand mortgaged the said property with the bank. Present applicant andaccused No.3 Ambrish Jagdish Jaiswal, brother-in-law of the presentapplicant stood as guarantor. On the basis of the said documents alongwith loan proposal, the bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 9 crores.03.Since there was default in repayment of loan amount, thebank initiated proceedings against the borrower and the guarantors.Pursuant to the recovery certificate, the bank also attached the propertyof which the sale-deed was produced and which was mortgaged. A boardwas put on the property. One Shaikh Parvez Ahmed, Shaikh FuzelAhmed and others approached Jawahar Colony Branch of the bank.They lodged complaint with the bank that they are owners of mortgagedproperty. They have not transferred said land to any one. On that theRecovery Officer made enquiry with the office of Sub-Registrar No.2,Chh. Sambhajinagar by issuing communication. Said communication is ( 3 ) {aba924.24}replied by the Registrar’s office by communication dated 19.04.2024informing that no such sale-deed is registered with the Sub-Registrar’soffice. Thus, it was found that the sale-deed produced by the applicant isbogus and fabricated document. The bank thus filed a complaint withvarious other documents. So far as allegation against present applicantis concerned, it is alleged that inspite of having knowledge that the sale-deed is bogus and fabricated, she helped accused No.1 in getting loanand thus she is also part of the conspiracy along with other accusedpersons and just to help accused No.1, she stood the guarantor.04.On registration of the complaint, police station issued noticeunder section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant,pursuant to notice, attended the police station. The applicant, thereafter,apprehended arrest and therefore she approached the learned SessionsJudge, Aurangabad. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated03.06.2024 rejected the application, on the ground that the presentapplicant is a wife of accused No.1 and was also a guarantor and that theinvestigation was in progress.05.The learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Ghanekar submitsthat there is no allegation in the entire FIR that this applicant was a party
Legal Reasoning
( 4 ) {aba924.24}to the alleged forged document. She has merely signed the documentsas a guarantor. No offence is made out under any of the sections allegedagainst her. Her specimen signatures are taken by police. After interimprotection she has attended the police station and has cooperated in theinvestigation. The investigation is practically over. Except signing thedocuments with the bank, there is no allegation showing that she hasknowledge about alleged forgery of sale-deed. Accused No.3-brother-in-law of the applicant is already released on bail on 09.05.2024, who wasalso a guarantor to the said loan. He thus submits that considering theground of parity, she also deserves bail in the event of her arrest.06.The learned APP Mr. A.S. Shinde vehemently opposed theapplication. He submits that the present applicant is not only a wife ofthe main accused, but is also partner in the business. Out of amount ofRs.9 crores, amount of Rs. 1 Crore 2 lakhs is immediately transferred tothe account of one Shakti Agencies, where the applicant is a partner.There are nine such firms, where she is a partner with accused No.1.Thus, she knows all the transactions of accused No.1 and she is alsobeneficiary of the present transaction. She is aware of day-to-daytransactions. Though the applicant has attended police station, she hasnot stated as to where the amount is invested. Till now only amount of ( 5 ) {aba924.24}Rs.52 lakhs is recovered. He further points out that the application wasmade to the bank for loan. The entire process was completed and theamount was also disbursed on the same day. This shows that all theseparties have acted in concert with connivance of the bank officials, whoare still absconding.07.Learned Advocate Mr. H.I. Pathan for intervenor submits thatin this case the property of his client is shown to have been transferred infavour of accused No.1. Said document is totally false. His clients weresurprised to see a board of the bank on their property, showing that theproperty is mortgaged to the bank and a charge is created. LearnedAdvocate Mr.H.I. Pathan further states that the signatures of the ownersare forged. The defence now sought to be raised is false and afterthought. He thus prays for rejection of the application.08.Considering all above arguments, this Court has consideredthe alleged role of the applicant in the offence and as to whether a caseis made out for grant of bail in the event of her arrest. Admittedly, theapplicant is not an employee of the bank. Considering all the allegationsas it is, the maximum punishment of 10 years is provided for the offenceunder section 409 of the IPC, but ingredients of that section are not ( 6 ) {aba924.24}attracted and other offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is notdisputed that she attended the police station pursuant to the interimrelief granted by this Court as and when called for. There is nothing onrecord to show that she has not cooperated in the investigation. Herspecimen signatures are already taken. So far as another co-accused i.e.Ambrish Jagdish Jaiswal is already released on bail and there is nocomplaint of misuse of liberty either by him or even by the presentapplicant.09.Considering all above facts, this Court finds that there shouldbe no difficulty in allowing the application. Hence, the following order :-ORDER(i)This Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.(ii)In the event of arrest of the applicant in connectionwith Crime No. 61 of 2024 registered with VedantNagar Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offencespunishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468,471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, she shall bereleased on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum ofRs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one solventsurety in the like amount.(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned police stationas and when called by the Investigating Officer for thepurpose of investigation.(iv)The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution
Decision
( 7 ) {aba924.24}evidence and shall not pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses.(v)The applicant shall give her contact details like mobilephone number, address etc. and in case there is anychange in the contact details, same shall be informedimmediately to the concerned police station.(vi)Criminal Application No. 4176 of 2024 for permission toassist the learned APP is allowed and disposed off.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2024/oct24/aba924.24