Deepali William vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the enormity of the fraud alleged, and the fact that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused, allegedly embezzled the loan amount based on forged documents. The Court noted that the investigation into the matter was ongoing. Given these factors, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application was accordingly rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Deepti William, proprietor of Alia Creation, applied for a loan under the Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Yojana to set up a textile industry. She submitted a quotation from M/s Ahmed Enterprises for sewing machines, listing a GST number, mobile number, and address. The bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 56.25 Lakhs and a cash credit limit. Funds were transferred to M/s Ahmed Enterprises. The bank manager allegedly provided a false verification report regarding machine installation. Later, the loan account became NPA. Physical verification revealed that the machines installed were worth significantly less than those in the quotation. Investigations revealed the quotation was fake, the GST number and other details were fabricated, and the loan amount was allegedly embezzled by the applicant and co-accused, causing a loss to the bank. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and false implication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of fraud and embezzlement of loan amounts based on forged documents? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant claims innocence and false implication. She asserts she did not file the quotation and that co-accused Shailendra Singh Thakur supplied the machines. She denies transferring any amounts and alleges co-accused Bhushan Shukla embezzled the funds. She highlights her status as a woman with no criminal past and the potential ruin of her reputation if arrested, offering cooperation with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent EOW and the objector oppose the bail application. They contend that the applicant, in connivance with co-accused, prepared forged documents, opened a bank account in the name of M/s. Ahmed Enterprises using these forged documents, got the loan sanctioned without supplying the specified machines, and subsequently embezzled the loan amount.