JUDGMENT
Khem Chand Sharma, J.
1. This application for bail under Section 439, CrPC arises out of the FIR registered for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 199, 200 and 120-B, IPC.
2. It is contended by Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that originally, the personal loan scheme was based on the trust of borrowers. With a view to plug the short-comings in the scheme, some modifications came to be introduced on 21.6.2002. Some relevant modifications are reproduced below:
(a) The branch Manager/Manager of Division should confirm that particulars furnished by the applicant are genuine and authenticated by authorised drawing and disbursing authority of the department, preferably by visit to the employees office/residence and mention the date of visit in his recommendation.
(b) The Branch Manager/Manager of Division will also confirm the applicants net income from employer’s record/I.T. Form No. 16.
(c) The applicant must be an existing customer of the branch having a satisfactorily maintained account.
No penalty for prepayment:
(i) Letter of undertaking to be obtained from the employer of the applicant agreeing to deduct the amount of instalment from the borrower’s salary and remit to the bank directly, in case of default, if possible.
(ii) Wherever defaults occur, say for 3 months prompt action is taken for the recovery of the bank’s dues including under Section 138 of N.I. Act by legal notices.
Where check off is available.
…f) undertaking/affidavit on stamped paper would be taken from the applicant confirming that he has not availed personal loan from any other institution/bank and would not avail such loan in future too before the repayment of the applied loan.
g) All documents regarding proof of identity/residence/income should be taken in original or attested copy duly certified by the sanctioning authority/BM with a noting that these have been personally verified from the original by him.
3. It appears that certain checks enumerated above were evolved in the Scheme to prevent availment of multiple finance by the borrowers, which were not in the original personal loan scheme.
4. It is contended that Mohd. Adil @ Praveen and Anand Singh have already been granted bail in FIR No. 117 and 118 of 2002, respectively on the ground that they repaid the entire loan amount to the Bank.
5. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner hatched conspiracy with Naveen Saxena and granted personal loan on the basis of forged documents prepared by Shri Saxsena.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. I am inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner, under Section 439, CrPC.
7. It is, therefore, ordered that accused Mohanjeet Singh Juneja S/o Mahender Singh be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sound sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in that Court or to any other Court where he is directed to appear on all dates of hearing and whenever called upon to do so during pendency of trial against him in the case arising out of FIR No. 120/2002, Police Station, Moti Doongari, Jaipur.