- (1.) Apprehending her arrest the accused-applicant has moved this second application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.253/2012 registered at Police Station Rampura Kotwali, Kota for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. The allegation against the applicant and co-accused is that they in pursuance of their conspiracy by using forged document obtained huge amount of loan from the complainant-bank. The first application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.1.2013.
(2.) In support of this application, learned counsel for the applicant has raised the following grounds:- (1) Although, the applicant was one of the joint applicant alongwith her husband-Shri Sandeep Singh to obtain loan from the bank, but there is no evidence collected during investigation even prima facie showing any role of the applicant in preparation of alleged forged document dated 18.10.2011 and, therefore, she can not be held liable merely on account of being a joint applicant to obtain loan. (2) From the evidence collected during investigation it is clear that the alleged forged document dated 18.10.2011 was produced before the complainant-bank by the co-accused-Shri Sandeep Singh and the present applicant was not present at that time. Co-accused-Shri Sandeep Singh himself has produced a letter before the bank admitting the fact that he alone presented the alleged forged document before the bank. (3) The letter dated 18.10.2011, in fact is not a "no objection certificate" issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kota and in it, it is clearly stated that a period of 20-25 days would be taken to issue "no objection certificate" and as soon as the N.O.C. would be prepared, it would be sent to the bank, but even then the complainant-bank itself without waiting for the required N.O.C. sanctioned loan in favour of the applicant and the co-accused. (4) No active role has been shown of the applicant for obtaining the loan from the bank. She being wife of the co-accused-Shri Sandeep Singh was a partner in the firm and signed the application to obtain loan as a partner, but merely by that reason she cannot be held liable for preparation of the alleged forged document. (5) A substantial amount to the tune of Rs.1,03,15,000/- has been deposited by one of the co-accused-Shri Ajeet Singh-father-in-law of the applicant in the complainant-bank and benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been granted to him by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2014. (6) The amount of loan was not personally paid to the applicant or any of the co-accused and it was paid to the company which supplied machinery to the borrowers and the machinery so purchased from the amount of loan has been hypothecated to the complainant-bank and the bank is entitled to recover the remaining amount of loan by sale of the hypothecated machinery. (7) In fact the dispute between the parties is regarding non-payment of the amount of loan and, therefore, the dispute is of civil nature, but to pressurise the applicant and co-accused FIR has been lodged. The complainant-bank can recover the remaining amount by filing a suit against the borrowers and the guarantor. (8) It is well settled legal position that only for the limited purpose of interrogation, arrest of the accused is not required. (9) There is no evidence that the applicant and the co-accused had intention to cheat the bank from the very inception and, therefore, even offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case after dismissal of the first application filed by the applicant and on the other hand she is avoiding her arrest and no interrogation has been made from her as she is not available at a place where her presence is normally expected. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and her husband co-accused-Shri Sandeep Singh jointly applied to obtain loan from the complainant-bank and a forged document dated 18.10.2011 was produced before the bank and on that basis huge amount of Rs.2,00,60,000/- was sanctioned and paid to them. The applicant cannot escape from her criminal liability merely by saying that no active participation has been attributed to her in preparation of the aforesaid document or the document was presented before the bank by her husband co-accused-Shri Sandeep Singh alone. When on a joint application filed by the applicant and her husband, an amount of loan has been sanctioned by the bank, the applicant is equally liable if the same has been sanctioned on the basis of a forged document. A person can be held liable for criminal conspiracy even on the basis of surrounding circumstances.;