Kamal Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. M.K. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Vashistha, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

The present first information report is with regard to the various loans taken from the Bank of Baroda. Large numbers of accused have been enlarged on bail. In the present case, again a loan of Rs. 13 lacs was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda. The co-accused, Ms. Kamlesh Rawat who is the wife of the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the 1st Bail Application No. 202 of 2011 by an order of the Court dated 4th May, 2011. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail application contending that the cheque which was issued in favour of Ratan Singh is the brother-in-law of the applicant. The Court finds from a reading of the counter affidavit that Sunil Rawat was the brother-in-law of the applicant who is alleged to have opened the bank account by forging the signature of Ratan Singh.

In the light of the aforesaid, without commenting anything further on the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case of parity is made out, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in Case No. 6/2010, R.C. No. 0072009A0003, u/s 120-B read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.