Trupti Suhas Bane vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
Dr. Trupti Suhas Bane - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 1620 Of 2020 with Interim Application No. 264 Of 2021 Along With Criminal Bail Application No. 778 Of 2021 Along With Criminal Bail Application No. 213 Of 2021
Decided On : 05-05-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w. Rahul Gaikwad, Ritika Bharadia, Gauri Govilkar and Nikita Abhyankar i/b. Gravitas Legal.
For Intervenor : Mr. Aamir Malik and Mr. Dube Patil.
For the State : Mrs. P.P. Shinde.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120(B) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Offence of cheating - Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy - Bail application - Held, Apex Court has observed that accused has not influenced any person while he was at large, allegation of tampering while in custody is not acceptable - When there is no document to indicate that accused is involved, mere allegation that, accused is co-conspirator cannot be basis to indicate that an economic offence has been committed by accused - Accused therein, is not in political power, nor holding any post of government so has to be in position to interfere - It was further observed that availability of accused for further investigation, interrogation and facing trial, is not jeopardized, as he is held to be not a flight risk and there is no possibility of tampering evidence or influencing /intimating witnesses - In case of (Supra) it was observed that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused, it is neither punitive, nor preventive deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person who will stand his trial when called upon - Grant or refusal to grant bail lies with discretion of Court - Bail ought not to be denied, to teach a lesson to the person whose offence is yet to be proved - Court pass order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicants have preferred these applications for bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in connection with C.R. No. 375 of 2019 registered with Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471 r/w. 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 30th September, 2019. The investigation was then transferred to E.O.W. Banking II vide C.R. No. 86 of 2019.

2. The brief facts of prosecution case are as under:

(a) The FIR was lodged by Jasbir Singh Matta, Manager of Recovery Cell, Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Limited (PMC Bank) being authorised by the Administrator appointed by Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

(b) The PMC Bank is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The bank was granted license to carry on banking business by RBI in 1984. The bank received scheduled status in 2000 and became Multi-State Co-operative Bank in 2004. The conduct of banking business by the PMC Bank is subject to the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the directions/ guidelines issued by RBI.

(c) It was learnt from the records that, the Managing Director of the bank Mr.Joy Thomas and other functionaries including Board of Directors executives of the bank and promoter of HDIL have connived to commit illegal acts/offences. Some of the loans mainly belonging to HDIL group companies were intentionally given to cause wrongful gain to HDIL and its promoters, at the cost of wrongful loss to the bank and its depositors. The records were fabricated/falsified to conceal irregularities. Wrongful acts of the management/bank have resulted in risk of depositors losing their money.

(d) The bank in their regulatory reporting had understated the actual exposure of certain bad loan accounts/ which in the normal course should have been disclosed and classified as Non-performing Assets (NPA’s) as per RBI norms. The bank was reporting to RBI as suppressed information of actual loans accounts with huge exposure and deliberately replaced them with fictitious accounts. The borrowers in this loan accounts and the functionaries of the bank, were suspected beneficiaries.

(e) In the advances master indent for the year ended 31st March, 2018 submitted to RBI, the bank had replaced 44 loan accounts during individual balance outstanding was higher with 21049 fictitious loan account, whose individual outstanding was comparatively lower.

(f) Preliminary assessment by interim RBI inspection conducted by RBI revealed that, 10 out of 44 borrowers accounts of HDIL group companies revealed that balance outstanding on 31st March, 2019 was Rs.4355.46 Crores and the balance outstanding as on 31st August, 2019 was Rs.4635.62 Crores. The actual financial position of the bank was camouflaged and the bank dis-actively shows its rosy pictures of its financial parameters, thus encouraging more depositors to open account with bank to their detriment and also the fabrication /falsification affected the depositor’s interest adversely.

(g) The perpetrators of the fraud viz. Manager, other functionaries, Board of Directors of HDIL and PMC Bank connived with each other. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy facilitated huge lending to HDIL group companies and other entities which were concealed from RBI and depositors to dupe the regulators, depositors and others. The management and persons responsible for conduct of the business of the bank, are liable to be prosecuted for conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, falsification of records etc.

(h) In terms of provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 every Chairman, Managing Director, Director, Auditor, Manager and any other employee of the bank were liable to be prosecuted for preparing incorrect documents with intent to cause damage to the interest of depositors.

(i) During the period from 2008 to 2019 the accused committed act of criminal conspiracy, cheating, crimina