Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - This is second application filed by applicant Sandeep under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant Sandeep apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2018 registered at Police Station Moghat Road, District Khandwa (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC.

2. The first application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.41656/2019 with the liberty to file afresh after some time.

3. As per prosecution case, applicant Sandeep Gupta and co-accused Rama Devi Gupta, Director of M/s Khandwa Industry Private Limited took CC limit of Rupees Four Hundred Lakhs from Punjab National Bank by mortgaging their goods (1200 cotton bales and 5700 cotton seeds bags). Those goods were kept by them in the godown, which was owned by Smt. Ruchita Gupta W/o applicant Sandeep and taken by the applicant on lease. On the basis of said stored goods they got CC limit of Rupees Four Hundred Lakhs from Punjab National Bank. For that, they gave their godown on sub-lease to L.T.C. Commercial Company Private Limited, Khandwa and executed an agreement in this regard on 07/04/2016. L.T.C. Commercial Company Private Limited issued a receipt regarding the goods stored in the godown and on the basis of said receipt Punjab National Bank gave loan to the applicant. Co-accused Shailendra Sonkar was Collateral Manager of L.T.C. Commercial Company Private Limited and was in charge of the godown in which those goods were kept by the applicant. When applicant and coaccused Rama Devi Gupta did not repay the loan amount, the bank auctioned the goods (cotton bales and cotton seeds bags) which were pledged by them. At that time it was found that applicant Sandeep Gupta and Coaccused Rama Devi Gupta after taking a loan from the Bank in connivance with the co-accused took out total 340 cotton bales from the godown, which was mortgaged by them against the loan amount. Thus, applicant and coaccused persons committed fraud with the Bank and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 80 Lakhs to the Bank. Therefore, Chief Manager of the Bank lodged a written report at Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa. On that report, after inquiry Police registered Crime No.67/2018 at Police Station Moghat Road Khandwa, District Khandwa (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC and investigated the matter. During the investigation, it was found that the applicant had made an iron angle structure in the warehouse, which covered the space of the godown due to which the entire warehouse seemed full of cotton bales from the outside and applicant and co-accused obtained the receipt of all 1200 Cotton bales by only keeping the 860 Cotton bales by playing fraud.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has availed only 50% loan facility (Rs.194.00 lacs approx) of the sanctioned facility i.e., Rs.400.00 lacs. The goods pledged before the Bank belonged to Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ltd. and were kept under the custody of LTC Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd., which is the authorized agent of the Bank. The applicant had no access to the said pledged goods which was under the custody of LTC Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. and the company after checking the pledged goods had issued the receipt to the effect that 1200 cotton bales were stored in the godown. The allegation that applicant had stored only 860 Cotton bales in the godown and obtained a receipt of storing 1200 in the godown by committing fraud is false. The duty to keep pledged goods safe was on LTC Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. So, LTC Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay the value of 340 cotton bales found to be less in the godown. The Bank has already auctioned the pledged goods (cotton bales) and has recovered a substantial amount and has also filed an application before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur for recovery of remaining due amount. The said dispute is of civil nature with regard to recovery of loan amount therefore, the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Limited and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 and M. Suresh and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2018) 15 SCC 273.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant in connivance with co-accused Shailendra Sonkar caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- and committed fraud with the Bank, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

6. The facts of the cases V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Limited and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 and M. Suresh and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2018) 15 SCC 273 relied upon by the learned counsel of the applicant do not match with the present case. So, that judgments do not help much to the applicant.

7. In this case it is alleged that applicant and co-accused had made an iron angle structure in the warehouse, which covered the space of the godown due to which the entire warehouse seemed full of cotton bales from the outside and applicant and co-accused obtained the receipt of all 1200 Cotton bales by only keeping the 860 Cotton bales by playing fraud. In the inspection report given by the District, Scientific Officer, who conducted the inspection of godown it is clearly mentioned that a two-tier platform made up by Iron Angle was found in the godown. Police also produce photos of that godown which support this report. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. Hence the application is rejected.