Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI bail APPLN. 2092/2014 MRS. VIJAY GAMBHIR
Mr P.K. Shama, Adv. Petitioner
Through
Mr P.K. Shama, Adv. Petitioner
Through
VERSUS
STATE (NOT OF DELHI)
Through Respondent Ms Neelam Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State SI Amit Kumar from Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.
Through Respondent Ms Neelam Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State SI Amit Kumar from Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
29.07.2016 Heard on the application for grant ofregular bail.
It IS submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as aclerk with Punjab National Bank and was not the sanctioning authority and for the transaction in question she was only aprocessing authority. He has referred to the documents appearing at page 52 ofthe application for showing that the spot verification was conducted by P.D. Sinha, ChiefManager and the legal opinion that the property was free from all encumbrances was given by Mr Kapil Sharma, who had visited the spot, took photographs and submitted his report. Onthe basis of documents submitted to the petitioner, she had merely processed the documents He further submits that the complainant himself was in collusion with the beneficiary Mustakeen which is apparent from the fact that the sale deed dated 08.08.2011 was executed by him after two months of the sanction of loan. It is further submitted that the petitioner earlier remained in custody for a period of almost two months and thereafter she was granted interim bail.
The charge-sheet qua the petitioner has already been submitted and no investigation thereafter has been carried out by the Investigating Officer ofthe case qua her. He further submits that two of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh and Mustakeen were already released on bail on 01.09.2015 and 07.10.2015.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, under instructions from the
2016:DHC:8199 Investigating Officer of the case does not dispute that the petitioner was only a processing authority and the sanctioning authority was the ChiefManager. She has also not disputed that two of the co-accused have already been released on bail and that charge-sheet against the petitioner has already been submitted. There are no allegations of misuser of thegrant of concession of interim bail.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2014 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed ofaccordingly.
Acopy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.
JTAGUPT
SUNITA GUPTA, J JULY 29,2016Arf 2016:DHC:8199
29.07.2016 Heard on the application for grant ofregular bail.
It IS submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as aclerk with Punjab National Bank and was not the sanctioning authority and for the transaction in question she was only aprocessing authority. He has referred to the documents appearing at page 52 ofthe application for showing that the spot verification was conducted by P.D. Sinha, ChiefManager and the legal opinion that the property was free from all encumbrances was given by Mr Kapil Sharma, who had visited the spot, took photographs and submitted his report. Onthe basis of documents submitted to the petitioner, she had merely processed the documents He further submits that the complainant himself was in collusion with the beneficiary Mustakeen which is apparent from the fact that the sale deed dated 08.08.2011 was executed by him after two months of the sanction of loan. It is further submitted that the petitioner earlier remained in custody for a period of almost two months and thereafter she was granted interim bail.
The charge-sheet qua the petitioner has already been submitted and no investigation thereafter has been carried out by the Investigating Officer ofthe case qua her. He further submits that two of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh and Mustakeen were already released on bail on 01.09.2015 and 07.10.2015.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, under instructions from the
2016:DHC:8199 Investigating Officer of the case does not dispute that the petitioner was only a processing authority and the sanctioning authority was the ChiefManager. She has also not disputed that two of the co-accused have already been released on bail and that charge-sheet against the petitioner has already been submitted. There are no allegations of misuser of thegrant of concession of interim bail.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2014 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
The application stands disposed ofaccordingly.
Acopy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.
JTAGUPT
SUNITA GUPTA, J JULY 29,2016Arf 2016:DHC:8199
JUDGMENT