HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No.1275 of 2024 Jeewan Chandra Pandey ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Govind Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the informant. With Anticipatory Bail Application No.1128 of 2024 Suchi Bhardwaj ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advocate (through video conferencing) holding brief of Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Both these anticipatory bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Jeewan Chandra Pandey and Suchi Bhardwaj are in judicial custody in FIR No.485 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail. 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, the applicants applied for a loan as a partner of M/s Inspiration Services for purchasing a property. The property was verified by the bank and a loan of Rs.3 crores 50 lakhs was advanced to the applicants. When the loan was not repaid, it was revealed that, in fact, the applicants did not ever purchase the property and they deposited title deeds of the property, which were forged and prepared on forged stamp papers. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Jeevan Chandra Pandey would submit that the loan was taken in the year 2016. The applicant had been repaying the loan even uptill 2014. Though, there were some intermittent default also; he would submit that the applicant did not consider the fact; he had no intention to defraud or cheat the bank; it was a commercial loan which was without collateral securities; there are no chances of tampering with the evidence; the case is based on documents. Therefore, it is a case fit for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Suchi Bhardwaj would submit that according to the State, it is not a case of custodial interrogation. It is not also the case to the 3 State that the applicant may flee from justice or tamper with the evidence; the applicant is a woman having five years’ baby with her. It is argued that the loan was totally commercial. The applicant is not involved in any activities of taking loan or committing any fraud. 7. Learned counsel for the bank would submit that modus operandi was specific from the conduct of the applicants. They had applied for a loan for purchasing a commercial property. The bank obtained Non Encumbrance Certificate (NEC) of the property. It was free from any encumbrances. The property was to be mortgaged with the bank. In fact, when the loan was granted, thereafter, certain deeds were submitted with the bank. 8. It is argued that in the year 2024, when the applicant made default in the re-payment of the loan. It was revealed that the title deeds which were deposited by the applicants were forged and they were prepared on the forged stamp. 9. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments. According to him, the applicants never got any sale deed executed in their favour and the sale deed which they filed with the bank was forged. It was not registered with the Registry Office. The details of the Registry Office and 4 the stamps were also forged. At that serial number, the sale deed of some other persons was registered. 10. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 11. Undoubtedly, liberty is precious and it should be protected. Even, at the stage of pre-arrest, this Court may protect some person from physical apprehension. There are various grounds which are taken into consideration while considering an application for anticipatory bail, which include, the nature and gravity of offence and the exact role of accused; antecedent, a possibility of fleeing from justice, chances of repeat offence etc. Undoubtedly, taking loan and making default per se does not sound a serious/heinous offence, but then what is alleged in the instant case is beyond the commercial transactions. 12. According to State, the applicants procured loan for purchasing a property with the assurance that the property would be mortgaged with the bank. The applicants deposited sale deeds which were registered, 5 but they were found forged. The property was never transferred in favour of the applicants; they also forged the stamp paper. This is very serious offence. In fact, it affects the economy of the country. 13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, both these anticipatory bail applications deserve to be rejected. 14. Both these anticipatory bail applications are rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.01.2025 Ravi