IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4832 of 2016 Dinesh Chand …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… 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 Balaji Laminator Pvt Ltd. located at Demotand, Hazaribagh. The Unit was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, resident of Flat No.-403, 4th floor, Maa Durga Apartment, Hazaribagh and his brother Sri Vineet Pratap Singh 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 12.09.2006 but subsequently declared N.P.A. On 09.10.2011 and since there was no recovery in loan account to the tune of Rs. 5.43 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 unit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 97 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 that few properties of M/s Balaji Laminators Pvt. Ltd. located at Hupad, Champa, District, Hazaribagh mortgaed vide Sale Deed Nos. 11421 dated 04.11.2009 & 12881 dated 06.12.2008 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 & the legal opinion for the above properties were given by Sri Markandey Trivedy, resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, Karma Road, Aurangabad on and legal opinion was given by Sri Tarkeshwar Rana, R/o PTC, Ground, Gandhinagar South, Behind Ajay Enclave, Hazaribagh on and legal opinion was given by Sri Pandey Ratneshwari Prasad, resident of 146, A.P. Colony, Gaya 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 valuation of the Gaya property was correct and so far as Hazaribagh property is concerned no rate chart is made available. 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 for the Sale deed No. 1402 dated 11.03.2006, the actual Govt. rate was Rs. 814/- per decimal in August, 2006, Rs. 1810/- per decimal in December, 2009 and Rs. 2091/- per decimal in August, 2011, whereas Shri Dinesh Chand has taken imaginary, enhanced and wrong Govt. rate of Rs. 8,800/- per decimal in August, 2006, Rs. 18,050/- per decimal in December, 2009 and August, 2011 respectively, thus dishonestly enhancing the value based on wrong and imaginary MVR/GRR. That similarly for the sale deed no. 16576 dated 27.10.2005, the acutual Govt. rate was Rs. 950/- per decimal in July, 2006, Rs. 1800/- per decimal in December, 2009 and Rs. 2180/- per decimal in August, 2011, whereas Shri Dinesh Chand has taken imaginary, enhanced and wrong Govt. rate of Rs. 12,100/- per decimal in July, 2006, Rs. 12,300/- per decimal in December, 2009 and Rs. 16,050/- per decimal in August, 2011, thus dishonestly enhancing the value based on wrong and imaginary MVR/GRR. That for the sale deed no. 12881 dated 06.12.2008, the actual Govt. rate was Rs. 1250/- per decimal in December, 2008 and Rs. 1520/- per decimal in August, 2011 whereas Shri Dinesh Chand has taken imaginary, enhanced and wrong Govt. rate of Rs. 12,300/- per decimal in December, 2008 and Rs. 16,050/- per decimal in August, 2011, thus dishonestly enhancing the value based on wrong and imaginary MVR/GRR. That for the Sale deed No. 11421 dated 04.11.2009, the actual Govt. rate was Rs. 1250/- per decimal in November, 2009 and Rs. 1520/- per decimal in August, 2011, whereas Shri Dinesh Chand has taken imaginary, enhanced and wrong Govt. rate of Rs. 12,300/- per decimal in August, 2011, thus dishonestly enhancing the value based on wrong and imaginary MVR/GRR. That the detail of the valuation report submitted by the petitioner and total amount of over valuation is depicted in following table:- Sl. Sale Location of Land Sl. Valuation Date and Valuation as Valuation Month and Difference Deed and Area No. per the Govt. Value taken by Govt. Value as per Sub in and Dinesh Chand, Bank's empanelled Registrar on the report of Valuation/ date valuer concerned circle office & Overvalued actual Govt. rate. (in Rs.) amount (in Rs.) 1 Sale Khata No. 12 Plot 1 01/08/06 Rs. 16,45,600/- (Rs. August, 1,52,218/- 14,93,382/- deed No. 2073 of 19 8,800/- per decimal) 2006 (Rs. 814/- No. decimal and 1348 per 1402 of 1.68 acres decimal) dated Mauza Kachauri 2 28.12.20 Rs. 33,75,350/- (Rs. December, 3,38,470/- 30,36,880/- 11.03. Thana No. 746, 09 18,050/- per decimal) 2009 (Rs. 1810/- 2006 P.S. Sherghati per decimal (Sl. Dist. Gaya, Bihar No. 3 17.08.20 Rs. 33,75,000/- (Rs. August, 3,91,017/- 29,83,983/- 1419) 11 18,050/- per decimal 2011 (Rs. 2091/- per decimal) 2 Sale Khata No. 138, 4 28.07.20 Rs. 3,50,900/- (Rs. July, 2006 27,550/- 3,23,350/- deed Plot No. 1493 of 06 12,100/- per decimal) (Rs. 950?- no. 29 decimal, per 16576 Mauza Hupad, decimal) dated Bhavanbai Thana No. 254, P.S. 5 28.12.20 Rs. 3,56,700/-(Rs. December, 52,200/- 3,04,500/- 27.10. 09 12,300/- per decimal) 2009 (Rs. 1800/- 2005 Muffasil, Dist. per (Sl. Hazaribagh decimal) No. 17025) 6 17.08.20 Rs. 4,65,450/- (Rs. August, 63,220/- 4,02,230/- 11 16,050/- per decimal) 2011 (Rs. 2180/- per decimal) 3 Sale Khata No. 118 7 15.12.20 Rs. 30,75,000/- (Rs. December, 3,12,500/- 27,62,500/- deed Plot No. 1507, 08 12,300 per decimal) 2008 (Rs. 1250/- no. Area 2.5 Acres at per 12881 Hupad Champa decimal) dated Demotand, P.S. Muffasil, P.S. P.S. 8 16.08.20 Rs. 40,12,500/- (Rs. August, 3,80,000/- 36,32,500/- 06.12. 11 16,050/- per decimal) 2011 (Rs. 1520/- 2008. No. 254, per (Sl. Hazaribagh, decimal) No. Jharkhand 13352) 4 Sale Khata No. 118, 9 07/11/09 Rs. 71,21,700/- (Rs. November, Rs. 63,95,200/- deed Plot No. 1528, 12,300/- per decimal) 2009 7,23,500/- no. Area 5.79 Acres at (Rs. 1250/- 11421 Hupad Champa per dated Demotand, P.S. decimal) 04.11. Muffasil, P.S. No. 2009 254, Hazaribagh, (Sl. Jharkhand No. 11547) 5 Champa, 10 17.08.20 Rs. 92,93,000/- (Rs. August, 8,80,080/- 84,12,920/- Demotand, PS1116,050/- per decimal) 2011 (Rs. 1520/- Muffasil, PS per No.254, decimal) Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 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. 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/