The court emphasized the gravity of the offenses, the amount involved, and the petitioner's failure to fulfill settlements as key factors in the decision to dismiss the bail application.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.228/2009 under Sections 406/420/409/468/471/ 120-B of IPC, at Economic Offences Wing Police Station, New Delhi.

2. The present case is registered on the complaint dated 04.11.2009 of Mr. R.K. Gupta, Senior Manager, Bank of Rajasthan, Overseas Branch Office, K.G. Marg, New Delhi (Now ICICI Bank), on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered and was investigation conducted. It is alleged in the complaint that in criminal conspiracy with G.N. Dass, Santosh Aggarwal, and other accused persons, including the petitioner herein, availed bill discounting/negotiating facilities against LC by submitting false and forged export documents such as Bill of Exchange, Invoice, Packing List, Certificate of weight and quantity, certificate of origin and consignment note (Truck receipt). It is further alleged that the petitioner has cheated the complainant bank for a sum of Rs.9.2 crores, by availing bill discounting facility through nine alleged companies.

3. Investigation started and it was found that the petitioner is one of the Directors of Ema Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Proprietor of Ema Global Trading and on the basis of false and forged export documents and in conspiracy with other accused persons, availed bill discounting to the tune of Rs.91,58,000/- and Rs.75,37,000/- in the account of his companies. During the investigation, the certificate of origin dated 04.02.2009 issued by Bharat Chamber of Commerce was found to be forged and even the consignment note No.63362 dated 02.02.2009 was also found to be forged. It was further found that the petitioner had submitted 10 invoices for availing bill discounting and only one out of them was genuine and no goods were exported through remaining 9 invoices.

4. Accordingly, eight accused persons including the petitioner herein were absconding and were declared proclaimed offenders. However, on 22.11.2014, the petitioner was arrested from Kolkata, West Bengal. The other co-accused Santosh Agarwal, who was arrested from Kolkata, West Bengal on 23.11.2014 was granted bail on 08.12.2014 by the learned CMM South, Saket Court on the ground of settlement with the bank.

5. During interrogation, the petitioner revealed that he had made genuine export against the same LC although on a later date. When the same was got verified from Superintendent of Customs, Ghojadanga, L.C.S., it was intimated that the goods were exported through the LC in question. During the trial the petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 21.01.2015 on account of settlement with the complainant bank for a sum of Rs.1,18,25,000/- which was to be paid by 31.03.2015, which the petitioner could not deposit, therefore he was again taken into custody on 29.07.2015. Thereafter, another settlement was made with the bank and the petitioner was directed to be released on interim bail on 05.08.2015 and this time again he could not deposit the settled amount with the bank and filed Crl. M.C. No. 3815/2015 for quashing of the FIR in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not cheated the bank in any way and the contention of the complainant bank that the applicant had not effected export and had submitted fabricated documents to prove the factum of export cannot be true, as the Department of Customs, Union of India by letter dated 28.03.2015 informed the Investigating Officer (EOW) of the case that goods were exported genuinely and also certified the invoice copy and the Export/Import Manifest showing the details of the movement of vehicles between India and Bangladesh carrying the shipment. The said bill of export was also certified by the Department of Customs, Government of India. The said fact has already been accepted by the prosecution in the charge sheet.

7. It is further contended that for export, a letter of cred