IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRLMP) NO OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

INDER PAL SINGH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...RESPONDENT

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT STATE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. At the outset, it is submitted that this Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner is a

complete abuse of process of the law. No question of law, much less any substantial

question of law, arises for consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the present Petition.

It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner vide the present SLP has approached

this Honble Court challenging the dismissal of his S.B. Crl. Misc. third Bail

Application No.1148 of 2017. The Honble High Court after correct appreciation of

all the facts and the stage of the evidence along with the gravity of the offence

committed categorically held as under:

The order dated 23.02.2017,whereby the accused/petitioner was filed under

section 439 CrPC. He has been charged u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B

of IPC in the case. The petitioner is in custody since 20 july 2016 and has

been granted bail by delhi high court but in this case due to the seriousness

and also the bail petition of the co-accused Prabhu dayal has been dismissed.

Thus there remains no ground of bail for the petitioner. Judgment relied by the
 counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case in view of the facts and

circumstances of the present case. The bail petition stands dismissed.

It is submitted that the Honble High Court vide its order while correctly applying the

well settled principles of law for the grant of bail has rightly rejected the same, as

there has been no substantial change in circumstance since the rejection of the

previous bail application of the accused Petitioner, hence the present Special Leave

Petition deserves to be dismissed.

2. It is submitted that it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of bail the

following factors have to be considered, (i) whether there is any prima facie or

reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature

and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)

danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behavior,

means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)likelihood of the offence being

repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and

(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. It is most respectfully

submitted that in the present factual matrix, taking into account not only the gravity of

the offence committed but the fact that prima facie there is very strong and cogent

evidence to establish that the accused Petitioner did in fact commit the offence as

levied on him.

3. It is submitted that the Petitioner in connivance with other accused persons through a

premeditated mind committed the offences of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of

trust and criminal conspiracy to raise loans from different financial and non financial

institutions to gain wrongful profit and forged the documents of the property no. D-3-
 16, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051 for the same purpose. They have created one

or more false documents of one property and taken loan from several banks, this

clearly shows the malafide intention of the petitioner, further establishing the fact that

accused persons are habitual offenders. The accused did the same with the AU

Financers by approaching them and requesting a loan, further wanting to transfer the

loan account from the Karur Vysya Bank already run on the same property situated in

D-3-16, Krishna nagar, New Delhi- 110051 to AU Finance. And, for this transfer the

AU Financers were supposed to pay the balance amount to Karur Vysya Bank.

Consequently, the complainant company paid Rs. 52,95,338 and the petitioners loan

account was transferred. Thus AU Finance sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.

1,50,00,000 on the property mortgaged by the petitioner, paying the remaining

amount of Rs. 94,78,143 to the accused no. 1 to 4. Finally, as a consequence of a

similar complaint filed by Sh. Satbir Singh for cheating involving Rs. 45 lacs, a case

registered with FIR no 92/2016, AU Finance came to know that the petitioner was not

the true owner of the property which he mortgaged and that the said property was an

instrument of an act put forth by the accused, before several such banks.

4. It may further be brought to the notice of this Honble Court that the accused wrongly

seeks bail on the ground that the documents presented are not forged. It is, in fact true

that the AU Finance had conducted enquiry and only after getting satisfied they

sanctioned the loan to the petitioner and collected the documents from Karur Vysya

Bank. However, the facts of the case happen to include the aforementioned bank

itself, in the names of the accused parties, for putting up a show with those forged

documents and deceiving the AU Finance, among other such banks. The accused no

5, with the help of its employees, as no outside has the authority to use its official
 paper/letterhead, created one or more false documents of the same property, taking it

to different banks, and maliciously requesting for loan, with a view to dupe them,

committing the offence of fraud, forgery and cheating with the complainant company.

They also created false NOC, producing the same before the complainant, giving false

assurances to take the loan.

5. It is mentioned that the petitioner, on page no 6 of the Special Leave Petition has

wrongly quoted Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V Rajesh Ranjan, which to state correctly

held that While it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it

enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a

balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of

society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on

them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant

bail to an respondent or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the

Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as

the interest of the society. Moreover, it is also relevant to state that in the present

case the trial is yet not complete and is at the stage where the evidence of the

prosecution is going on. Under such circumstances, it is apprehended that if the

accused/ petitioner is granted bail, there is every likelihood of his trying to distort

the evidences. Hence, since the accused is undergoing trial, he ought not to be

released on bail at least till the prosecution of evidence is concluded.

6. That no new facts or grounds have been pleaded before this Honble Court which is

not part of record of the courts below.

FILED ON: FILED BY:

ADVOCATE FOR THE

RESPONDENT STATE