Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2988‑B of 1984, decided on 27th January, 1985.

‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/467‑‑Petitioner obtained loan beyond limits provided by financial schedule in connivance with Bank Manager‑‑Banks' loan allegedly secured by property mortgaged in favour of Bank‑‑Bank requesting at one stage for withdrawal of case against accused under promise from them to pay debt in cash‑‑Petitioners not paying loan as promised‑‑Petitioners, held, had been playing hide and seek with Bank in payment of loan‑‑Petition for bail dismissed in circumstances.

Aftab Farrukh and Amjad Ahad Sheikh for Petitioners.

Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, for Deputy A.‑G. for the State.

Salim Mahmood Chahal for the Complainant‑Bank.

.‑‑ This order will also dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous 2993‑B of 1984.

The representative of the bank has appeared with the record and has argued that in connivance with the Bank Manager, loan was obtained by the petitioners beyond the limit provided by the Financial Schedule. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they are not responsible for any irregularity committed by the Manager of the Bank. Further contended that the bank's loan has been secured because property worth Rs.30 lacs has now been mortgaged. According to the bank, Rs.19,45,000 were due whereas petitioners dispute this figure. According to them, they only owe bank for which they have given ample security. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the bank at one stage had written to the F.I.A. for the withdrawal of petitioners' name from the case which was registered in 1977. This is not denied by the State counsel but according to them after having made a promise that the petitioners would pay up the debt in cash, they have still not done so and had thus deceitfully obtained this withdrawal letter from the bank. Learned counsel has argued that at one stage, Rs.7 lacs were wrongly shown in the statement of accounts of the petitioners which the bank later credited.

We have considered the matter. These are matters of evidence. From the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the bank, it prima facie appears that in this matter of payment of loan the petitioners are playing hide and seek with the bank, we, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for bail. This petition is dismissed. The interim bail allowed to them is cancelled. They shall surrender to custody.

M. A. K.

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.