news details |
|
|
| Court rejects pre-arrest bail of couple, ors involved in cheating case | | | Early Times report
Jammu, July 28- Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu BL Bhat today rejected the pre-arrest bail application filed by Rajesh Kumar, his wife Anju resident of Adarsh Vihar Jammu and Gagan Deep Singh resident of Sainik Colony Jammu allegedly involved in a case registered by CBI u/s 120-B r/w section 420, 468, 471 RPC and 5(2) r/w section 5(1) (d) of J&K PC Act 2006.
After hearing senior Advocate Sunil Sethi appearing for the petitioners and SK Bhat senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the Special Judge observed that in the present case a public sector bank was allegedly duped by inflating the value of collateral security of the landed property. Allegedly the subject matter of the mortgage was purchased @ Rs 12,500 per Kanal and and Rs 10,000 per Kanal. The value of properties was not more than 3.5 lakhs as against its declared value of Rs 88 lacs. Allegedly the panel valuer inflated the value of the property. From FIR it is gathered that the bank got the document relating to mortgage property scrutinized by its panel advocate. Allegedly the panel advocate overlooked the defects suggesting that he had joined hands with the loanee and his associates. The house enquiry by the bank revealed several lapses in sanctioning of loan bringing to notice transgressions of grave nature. From investigation conducted so far it appears that the petitioner Rajesh Kumar obtained loan Rs 75 lakhs by inflating the value of mortgage property in collaboration with bank officials and others connected with the process of sanctioning of loan while he had purchased the same property for peanuts in 2005. The investigation is still at the very initial stage and interest of the community at large is involved. The investigating agency (CBI) also suspects involvement of Rajesh Kumar in similar transaction. Reference has been made to a particular case, commission of very serious offence is alleged and consideration of bail entirely rests upon the outcome of investigation. Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail and the application is accordingly rejected. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
