Site icon THE NEW INDIAN

Loan fraud case: Accused sent to jail despite settlement, later granted bail

A 60-year-old man, the main accused in a ₹65,000 loan fraud case, was initially remanded to 14 days' judicial custody despite the matter being settled.

A 60-year-old man, the main accused in a ₹65,000 loan fraud case, was initially remanded to 14 days' judicial custody despite the matter being settled.

NEW DELHI: A 60-year-old man, the main accused in a Rs 65,000 loan fraud case, was initially remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody despite the matter being settled. He was later released on bail after the complainant bank stated they had no objections to his release.

 

The case was reported from Saket Court, where Arun Kumar Jain was sent to judicial custody on Monday. However, on Tuesday, the court granted him bail.

 

Jain, who had been declared a proclaimed offender in the loan fraud case, was apprehended recently. After being caught, he made full payment to the complainant bank. Despite this, he was remanded to judicial custody on Monday.

 

 

ALSO READ: Supreme Court dismisses anchor’s appeal in forgery case against Colgate

 

Subsequently, Jain filed a bail application through his Advocate Ms Pulak Gupta.

 

“Jain made a payment of ₹65,000 as per the compromise settlement on August 31, 2024. This was a key part of our argument before the court,” Ms Gupta explained.

 

Speaking to The New Indian, Advocate Umakant Kataria who was appearing for the bank said, “The loan amount was settled with the complainant bank, Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd. Despite that, Jain was remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody.”

 

 

ALSO READ: Supreme Court rejects plea for paper ballots, electoral reforms

 

The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused had been involved in the alleged offence and his application should be dismissed.

 

The court, however, noted that the bank’s authorized representative had confirmed the matter was settled, the settlement amount had been paid, and they had no objection to Jain being granted bail.

 

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the bailable nature of the offence, and the established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. I deem it fit to grant bail to the accused at this stage,” the court stated in its order.

 

Jain was granted bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the same amount.

 

The court also imposed several conditions on Jain:

 

He must attend court as per the bond conditions.

 

He must not commit any offence, including those of a similar nature.

 

He must not directly or indirectly threaten or dissuade witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

 

He must not tamper with evidence.

 

He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.

Exit mobile version