Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 10(S)/ 2014-EOW-R for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging therein that: (i) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City has given loan to Shirdi Sai Technopacks Pvt. Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh. (ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, and Sri Birendra Kumar and its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Bokaro (SME Branch, Bokaro). (iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named unit on 22.08.2009 but subsequently, declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 4.89 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stresses Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures. (iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under: Shirdi Sai Technopacs Pvt. Otd-Present outstanding Rs. 4.89 crores. Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession notice under section 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 93 of 2012. (v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/2012-13 dated 07.03.2013 that few properties of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 6745, 6775 & 6774 all dated 26.06.2009 were found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd Co. as under; M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd:- The properties of this unit were mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 6745 dated 26.06.2009, Sale deed No. 6775 dated 26.06.2009, Sale deed No. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 and all the above sale deeds represent fake properties as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of Advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and as per his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand. (vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Official of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report. (vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 4.89 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it is not in dispute that the loan had been sanctioned to the company after the opinion of its advocate and the valuation done by the government approved valuer had been chosen by the bank itself.
(3.) Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an honest and sincere business. Reunka Group of companies has altogether 5 companies namely; (I) Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd (ii) Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd (iv) Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd (v) Balaji Food and Masala Co. It has been submitted that Renuka Group of Companies has five companies altogether is testamentary of the fact that the petitioner is sincere businessman and not a criminal/offender. With regard to the allegation regarding the alleged property being fake, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wanted to purchase land and had started searching for that. In course of such search the petitioner came in contact with Mr. Devendra Prajapati, an advocate by profession he used to deal in land sale and purchase. The said Devendra Prajapati, advocate, shown papers of land and the petitioner being satisfied purchased lands by terms of registered sale deeds. After each registration of sale deed, the said Devendra Prajapati used to keep the sale deed and after completion of mutation and issuance of rent receipts used to return the sale deeds alongwith correction slips and rent receipts meaning thereby the land was made available by Devendra Prajapati who did the entire transaction, got the sale deed registered, he got the mutation done and he got the rent receipt issued.. Further, it has been submitted that the forgery committed by said Devendra Prajapati and his associates, the petitioner filed complaint Case being C.C. Nos. 2279, 2280 & 2281 of 2014 respectively. The petitioner spent his hard earned money in purchasing the land and now facing the allegation that the sale deed is fake. Such being the situation, the petitioner himself is a victim and not an offender.;