IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4827 of 2016 Dinesh Chand …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C. --------- C.A.V. On 23.08.2017 Pronounced on 18/11/2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecution is that one Niraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, duly authorized by the competent authority of the Bank of lodge an F.I.R. That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City has given loan to Shirdi Sai Technopacks Pvt Ltd. located at Demotand, Hazaribagh. The company was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, resident of Flat No.-403, 4th floor, Maa Durga Apartment, Hazaribagh and Sri Birendra Kumar, resident of Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh and its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at commercial Branch, Bokaro. It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above mentioned unit on 22.08.2009 but subsequently declared N.P.A. On 28.11.2011 and since there was no recovery in loan account to the tune of Rs. 4.89 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Patna for hard recovery measures. It is further alleged that notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the company before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 93 of 2012 and the matter was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the meantime NPA Resolution Agent, M/s. Vision, had taken possession of the land and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India. M/s Vision advised vide it letter No. VFBS/38/2012-13 dated 07.03.2013 but the number given in the written report were found to be fake properties and as such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred by SAMB Patna to local Head Office, SBI, Patna for investigation. It is further alleged that all the above sale deeds represent fake properties as per Legal Opinion dated 05.10.2013 of Advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and as per his opinion, the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property was earlier given by Sri Dinesh Chand, petitioner of 433, A.P. Colony, Gaya and the legal opinion for the above properties were given by Sri Tarkeshwar Rana, resident of PTC, Ground, Gandhinagar South Behind Ajay Enclave, Hazaribagh on the basis of these allegation the instant case was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that no forgery alleged to have been committed by this petitioner and there is specific allegation against Vivek Pratap Singh, who is the beneficiary of the loan and there is no quid pro has been alleged against this petitioner and the allegation against this petitioner that he has given valuation report of the higher rate is mis conceived. It is also submitted that during course of investigation petitioner has co-operated with the C.B.I and statement was recorded and he never arrested and C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted final form on 30.09.2015 and learned Special Judge has taken cognizance under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)9d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so petitioner deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned standing counsel on behalf of the C.B.I has appeared and filed the counter affidavit and it has been stated that during course of investigation following fact have been emerges. That the details of the valuation report submitted by the petitioner and total amount of over valuation is depicted in the following:- Description Value worked out Valuation made by the Difference in Value considered of by Shri Dinesh District Sub-Registrar, valuation of the by the accused Gaya and Hazaribagh properties Chand (in Rs.)91) as per the Govt. Rates property (in Rs. officials (in Rs.) (in Rs.) (2) (1-2) Area-685 84,25,500/- 8,56,250/- 75,69,250/- 25,00,000/- decimal land registered vide sale deed No. 6745 dated 16.06.2009 Area 100 12,30,000/- 1,25,000/- 11,05,000/- 1,26,38,000/- decimal land registered vide Sale Deed No. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 Area 315 38,74,500/- 3,93,750/- 34,80,750/- 18,45,000/- decimal land registered vide Sale Deed No. 6775 dated 26.06.2009 Total Area- 16,50,000/- 15,45,196/- 1,04,804/- 58,11,000/- 187.5 decimal land registered vide Sale Deed No. 1400 dated 11.03.2006 Total 1,51,80,000/- 29,20,196/- 1,22,59,804/- 2,27,94,000/- That the contention made in para 7 that forgery has been committed by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, beneficiary of the loan account, is tre. However, it is submitted that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh cheated the bank in criminal conspiracy with other co- operated persons including this petitioner. That it has been submitted by the petitioner in para-8 that no quid pro quo is attributed to the petitioner and that he has made no financial gain or obtained any illegal gratification. It is respectfully submitted here that the petitioner in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently showed wrong Govt. Revenue Rate (GRR) Minimum Valuation Report (MVR) issued by concerned Sub-Registrar office for all the landed properties and submitted highly overvalued valuation reports to favour the promoter. He has dishonestly conspired with other co-accused persons to cheat the bank. That the contention made in the para-10 that valuation report w.r.t the properties of Gaya are correct is totally false and misleading, hence denied. There is valuation report of concerned Sub-Registrar on record to prove the wrong claim of the petitioner. The contention of this para has already been dealt in detail in para No.06 above. With regard to the properties located at Hazaribagh, the RTI reply referred by the petitioner has clearly mentioned that the MVR was available on notice board. It is further submitted that the petitioner could have visited the District Sub-Registrar Office before quoting its value in his valuation reports. It is enough to conclude that the petitioner dishonestly and wrongfully quoted an inflated and imaginary value of MVR in criminal conspiracy with Vivek Pratap Singh and other co-accused persons so that they could get the loan facilities sanctioned to M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt. Ltd, and thus cheated the bank, hence petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of C.B.I. In view of the evidences in collected against the petitioner during course of investigation which reveals that final form has been submitted and also accused in other criminal cases i.e. RC Case No. 11(S)/2014 (EOWR), RC Case No. 12(S)/2014 (EOWR), RC Case No.08(S)/2014 (EOWR) and RC Case No. 09(S)/2014 (EOWR) pertaining to the same firm belongs to the Vivek Pratap Singh and against which final form has been submitted, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/