Mohd Nawab v. State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5520 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed, by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre arrest bail in Crime No.37 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 205 and 506 read with 120-B and 34 of IPC.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cleared the loan amount; therefore, there is no financial loss to the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the relief sought by the de facto complainant as to the non-binding of the mortgage under memorandum of title deeds in O.S. No.1667 of 2007 was not granted by the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that the petitioner, in connivance with his wife-accused No.2, mortgaged the family properties in favour of the Bank, with an ulterior motive, to deceive the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the mother of the de facto complainant and the petitioner died in the year 1995 whereas the petitioner mortgaged the family properties in the year 2001 and obtained loan from the Bank in the name of himself and his mother; therefore, it is not a fit case to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1945 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad,

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed on 21.6.2017.

4.

A perusal of the record reveals that Mohd Meraj Ahmed has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and his wife. After referring the same for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station, registered the same as Crime No.37 of 2017.

5.

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and de facto complainant are own brothers and their mother died in the year 1995. It is the further case that the petitioner mortgaged the family property to the Jammu and Kashmir Bank by impersonating his wife as his mother. The record reveals that the de facto complainant filed O.S. No.1667 of 2007 against the petitioner for partition of the family property including the property mortgaged to the Bank, and the said suit was decreed. The record prima facie reveals that the petitioner obtained loan by mortgaging the property of the de facto complainant without his consent and knowledge. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the second petitioner appeared before the Bank as if she is the mother of the petitioner and de facto complainant.

6.

Taking into consideration the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

7.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J August 17, 2017 YS