IMPORTANT POINT
The court balanced the accused's right to a speedy trial and personal liberty with the gravity of the accusations and the interest of the society, and granted bail with stringent conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri Yadav, Learned APP appearing for the State.

2. This is a second application for bail by the applicant-Waryam Singh Kartar Singh in this Court. The earlier application being Bail Application No. 800 of 2022 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 21/02/2023. Having regard to the gravity of the accusations against the applicant, before I proceed to consider this application on the grounds now raised, it is expedient to reproduce the earlier order dated 21/02/2023 for ease of reference and to appreciate the magnitude of this serious economic offence alleged which reads thus:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for the intervener.

2. This is an application for bail in respect of C.R.No. 86 of 2019 dated 30/09/2019 registered with EOW, Banking Unit-II, Mumbai Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short) and under sections 46(I) and 47(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

3. The FIR is dated 30/09/2019. The FIR initially was registered with Bhandup Police Station which has since been transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Banking Unit-II, Mumbai. The Bank in question is ‘Punjab and Maharashtra Co- operative Bank’ (‘PMC Bank’, for short). There are 44 accused in all. The applicant is the accused no.4. The applicant at the relevant time was the Chairman of the PMC Bank. On a complaint lodged by Jasbir Singh Matta, Manager of the Recovery Cell of PMC Bank, the alleged offence which involves financial fraud to the tune of Rs.4635 Crores came to be registered.

4. Briefly stated, it is alleged that PMC Bank had sanctioned loans without following due procedure and without adequate security, in favour of Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (“HDIL”, for short). The accused nos. 1 and 2 are the Promoters and Directors of HDIL who obtained these loans. The accused no. 3 is the Managing Director of PMC Bank who is alleged to have been aware all through out of these procedural irregularities committed by PMC Bank while sanctioning the loans. Though he was duty bound to bring to the notice of the concerned the said irregularities which he was well aware of, the same was never brought to the notice of the regulators.

5. Against the applicant i.e. accused no. 4, it is alleged that there has been deliberate dereliction in his duty and failure on his part as a Chairman in preventing the perpetration of financial fraud that was committed thereby putting the savings of around 9 to 12 lakhs depositors to peril. The argument is that the applicant was not only aware of the irregularities but actively facilitated them given his close proximity with accused no.1. It is alleged that loans were given to one group of companies of which accused nos. 1 and 2 were the main beneficiaries and that as many as 21049 fictitious loan accounts were created to route the loan transactions.

6. After filing of the charge-sheet, 4 supplementary charge-sheets have been filed. The investigation is complete. It is contended that the offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 also has been registered against the accused and further investigations are on-going. The charge-sheet runs into 4900 pages and there are additional 50,000 pages which are to be relied upon during the trial as per the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. The number of witnesses is more than 400.

7. Considering the allegation against the applicant who was mainly tasked to supervise the general working of the Bank, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Managing Director in his letter addressed to the Reserve Bank of India has clearly stated all the loan accounts were sanctioned at his behest and none of the Directors are responsible. Learned counsel submitted that as many as 39 persons which include the Directors an