AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with
crime No. 369 of 2019 registered in Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, CG for offence punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the present applicant along with co-accused Vishwajeet Bhaumik used the original properties papers of
Vinita Pandey wife of the complainant namely Prashant Pandey to obtain loan of Rs. 50.00 Lacs without the knowledge and consent of the
complainant. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the co-accused Vishwajeet Bhaumik for obtaining loan on which the complainant was
directed to submit original property papers to be used as collaterals, however, instead of sanctioning the loan in favour of Vinita Pandey or her
husband Prashant Pandey, the applicant and Vishwajeet bhaumit got the loan sanctioned in the name of M/s Abhilash Engineers, partners Ruma
Bhaumik wife of the Vishwajeet Bhaumik and the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the
applicant is in jail since 29.06.2020 and the First bail application vide order dated 28.10.2020 in MCRC No. 5708 of 2020 and the second bail
application vide order dated 08.07.2021 in MCRC No. 4542 of 2021 have already been rejected by the co-ordinate Benches, therefore, he may be
enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned State counsel strongly opposes the bail application and submits that there are at least eight cases against the Viswajeet Bhaumik
wherein he had used the property papers of some other persons to obtain loan in the name of his wife or shown his wife to be a partner in the firm
along with some other accused, therefore, the application may be liable to be rejected.
Considering the rival submission made by the parties, and also keeping in mind the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the opinion that the
applicant has no case for regular bail, however, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and the State is directed to take best efforts for the
examination of the prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, the application is Rejected.