Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. 6(S)15EOW-R, F.I.R. No. RC0932015S0006 for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the I.P.C on the basis of complaint lodged by Sri Vimal Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, P.N.B, Circle Office Bagro Market, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand alleging therein that Bank has issued General Power of Attorney in his favour which, he is competent to file complaint, prosecute suit on behalf of bank. It is further alleged that partnership firm namely M/s A.K. Enginerring, represented by its partners namely, Mr. Shahid Khan, Mr. Jawed Khan along with its guarantors namely Sahdab Khan, Mr. Azaz Khan, dishonestly applied on 14.03.2011 loan with the bank with a dishonest intention to cheat the bank and Siphon off the Public Money and thereby all the aforesaid persons conspired and with prior agreement and meeting of minds dishonestly induced the bank into loanign transaction for grant of loan of Rs. 10.00 crore. The collateral scurity in the account is EM of sale deed No. 3963 dated 22.07.2010 and sale deed No. 393 dated 20.01.2011. Thus, the partnership firm namely, M/s A.K. Engineering represented by its partners namely Mr. Shahid Khan, along with its gurarantors namely Mr. Sahadab Khan, Mr.Azaz Khan all have jointly conspirred and have deliberately with prior meeting of minds have agreed to dishonestly induce the bank into this transaction on the bais of the aforresaid two properties covered by the said two title deeds which are totally prohibited title deeds and thus all the accused persons kenew full well that the said mortgage will not be enforceable and marketable by the bank. The value of the property mortgagted was tampered with and alterred from Rs. 2,87,688 to Rs. 2.87,66,800/- in case of sale deed No. 3963 and from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 28 crores in case of sale deed No. 393. Thus they cheated the Punjab Natinal Bank to the tune of Rs. 10 crores and caused wrongful gain to themselves and corresponding wronglful loss to the Bank. On the basis of these allegations instant case has been lodged.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Bagty is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is not named in F.I.R. The petitioner is only practicing lawyer and allegation against him is that he has given false legal opinion in terms of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Further, it has been submitted that similarly the petitioner has been implicated in connection with R.C. No. 07(S0/2015-EOW-R with allegation of sale deed No. 3747 dated 07.07.2008 and in second case being R.C. No. 08(S) 2015-EOW-R, the same sale deed No. 3747 along with sale deed Nos. 3739, 3740, 3742, 3745 all dated 07.07.2008 have also been taken whereas in the instant third case being R.C. No. 06(S)2015-EOW-R, two sale deeds sout of the above, being sale deed no. 3739 and sale deed No. 3745 both dated 07.07.2008 have again been taken and cases filed under sections 120-B r/w sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(2), r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation, the petitioner fully co-operated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and and when his presence was required. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
(3.) On the other hand learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this petitioner is an Advocate in Civil Court, Jamshedpur and he has given false legal opinion regarding C.N.T. Act on the basis which loan was sanctioned.;