Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010039352025 2025:GAU-AS:2574 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/436/2025 DEV NATH SHARMA AND ANR. S/O- BHAGWAT SHARMA R/O SONAI MIKIR PATH, UDAYAN VIHAR, SATGAON, GUWAHATI, SACHAL, SATGAON,GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: SMT. RUPA SHARMA W/O SRI DEV NATH SARMA R/O SONAI MIKIR PATH UDAYAN VIHAR SATGAON GUWAHATI SACHAL SATGAON GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N JOTENDRA SINGH, MRS P HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A BORUA (INFORMANT),MS. P BHATTACHARYA (INFORMANT),MR. T J MAHANTA (INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. N. Jotendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the complainant. 2) Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners, namely, (i) Sri Dev Nath Sharma, son of Bhagwat Sharma and (ii) Smt. Rupa Sharma, wife of Sri Dev Nath Sarma, both residents of Sonai Mikir Path, Udayan Vihar, Satgaon, Guwahati, District-Kamrup (Metro) have filed this application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for their pre-arrest bail in Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 40/2025 registered under Sections 420/468 of the IPC, (corresponding to Section 318/336 BNS, 2023), corresponding to G.R. No. 734/2025. 3) The petitioners contended that they are no way connected with the case and has been falsely implicated in it. It is submitted that the bank has thoroughly verified the documents submitted by them and thereafter, sanctioned the loan and that they did not transfer the land that is mortgaged with the complainant bank while taking loan to any other even to one A. K. Soni. The petitioners reiterated that only after due verification of their land documents and finding it to be perfect without any incumbencies, the complainant bank has sanctioned the loan to them. 4) Mr. N. Jotendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments for the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sushila Agarwal and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1; Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632 and the decision of the Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case of Davinder Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 16.06.2022. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, for the reasons above prayed for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner in said Paltan Bazar P.S. Case 40/2025. 5) As per the FIR dated 24.01.2025 lodged by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, having its Branch at Achyut Plaza, 3rd Floor, old NRC Building, behind HUB, Guwahati before the Paltan Bazar Police Station, the case is that the accused petitioners resident Page No.# 3/5 of House No. 39, Sonai Mikir Path, Satgaon, Udayan Vihar, Guwahati, District-Kamrup (Metro), took a loan amount of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- by mortgaging a land submitting forged documents and singing false declaration with an intention to make wrongful gain to themselves and thereby cheating and wrongful loss the complainant financial institution. 6) Perused the case diary placed before the Court by Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is seen that the petitioners in February 2022, approach the complainant company and applied for a loan against property submitting land documents in their name consisting of one sale deed bearing No. 13133 of 2015 dated 09.11.2015, measuring 1 Bigha (13.38 Are) covered by Dag No. 24, K P Patta No. 398, Lot No. 16, Village-Satgaon, Mouza-Beltola, Revenue Circle-Dispur, District-Kamrup (Metro) which was in the name of M/s New Joy Maa Drugs Distributors, which the petitioners claimed that it belongs to them. The accused petitioners also submitted a copy of Jamabandi of the said land issued by the concerned Circle Officer claiming that they are the absolute owner of the said land having possession on it and also submitted Non- Encumbrance Certificate dated 08.12.2021 that was issued by the Office of the Senior Sub- Registrar Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. Considering those documents, the complainant company sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- to the petitioners to their accounts in the Bank of Baroda by executing a loan agreement on 28.02.2022. The petitioners mortgaged the said land to the complainant company by executing equitable mortgage deed in favour of the complainant company with an undertaking that land is free from all encumbrances. As per the loan agreement, though the petitioners were to pay Equal Monthly Instalments (EMI) of Rs. 4,81,743/- the petitioners were irregular in payment of the EMI of the loan and in the month of July 2023, the petitioners defaulted in making payment as per the schedule of payment and that the State Bank of India have taken symbolic possession of one of the residential house of the accused petitioners under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 that raised a suspicion in the mind of the complainant company about the secured mortgaged property. On verification in the local authorities as well as Government Officials including the Office of the Dispur Revenue Circle at Guwahati, Office of the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati and the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar at Guwahati, it was found that the land mortgaged by the petitioners with the complainant company while taking loan of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- by loan agreement dated 28.02.2022 have already been sold one Mr. Avishek Kumar Soni in the year 2017 and the said land has already been mutated in the name of said Mr. Avishek Kumar Soni in the year 2018. It is alleged that the petitioners knowing fully well of the aforesaid facts and consoling those facts Page No.# 4/5 fraudulently obtained the loan of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- from the complainant company submitting false documents and signing false declaration with the intention to deceive the said company and its representatives at the inception when those documents and false declarations were made thereby the petitioners committed a grave offence. 7) Said FIR of the complainant company dated 25.01.2025 was accordingly registered as Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 40/2025 under Sections 420/468 of the IPC. 8) It is seen that the petitioners have sold the said land involved in the case to one Mr. Avishek Kumar Soni by executing a registered sale deed on 13.10.2017, Certificate No. IN- AS01660140639637P, Certificate issue date- 13th October, 2017 in presence of witnesses Ram Nath Sharma, son of Bhagawat Sharma; and Prem Kumar, son of Rameshwar Prasad Soni identified by one Advocate Bhaskar Das. 9) Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently objected the bail of the petitioner. 10) Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam by placing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 submitted that since the petitioners are involved in the grave economic offence they are not entitled for any anticipatory bail in said Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 40/2025. 11) Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam by placing the provisions of Section 111 (1) with Explanation (iii) submitted that Section 111 of the BNS, 2023 relates to Organised Crime and its Explanation (iii) stipulates “Economic Offence” that includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counter fitting of currency-notes, bank-notes and government stamps, Hawala transactions, mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud several persons or doing any act in any manner with a view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any other institution or organisation or obtaining monetary benefits in any form. 12) Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that as the petitioners are involved in the organised crime and defrauded the complainant financial company, fraudulently obtained loan amount of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- by forging documents and by submitting false documents and signing false declarations, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail in the Page No.# 5/5 said Paltan Bazar P.S. Case. 13) Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is suffering from medical ailments with Oesophageal growth, that is Malignant and that petitioner No. 2 is a housewife and therefore, their anticipatory bail in the case should be considered. 14) Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant bank from the Annexures appended by the petitioners placed before the Court that the medical document annexed with the petition as Annexure 2 is of one Mr. Dev Nath Sharma, who is of 17 years old and biopsy was advised. But the said report did not ascertain that the petitioner No. 1 is suffering from Malignancy and he did not annex any biopsy report. Mr. Mahanta submitted that both the petitioners defrauded the bank of an amount of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- and it is also not the case of the petitioners that they did not pay the EMI since July 2023. 15) Considered the decisions cited by Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 16) After hearing both the parties and considering the materials in the case diary, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners, (i) Sri Dev Nath Sharma, son of Bhagwat Sharma and (ii) Smt. Rupa Sharma, wife of Sri Dev Nath Sarma are not entitled for their pre-arrest bail in Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 40/2025 registered under Sections 420/468 of the IPC, (corresponding to Section 318/336 BNS, 2023), corresponding to G.R. No. 734/2025. 17) Accordingly this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners (i) Sri Dev Nath Sharma, son of Bhagwat Sharma and (ii) Smt. Rupa Sharma, wife of Sri Dev Nath Sarma, in Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 40/2025 stands rejected. 18) Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant