The court's decision emphasized the gravity of the offense, the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner, and the evidence collected during the investigation as key factors in dismissing the bail application.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 92/2016 under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Senior Relationship Manager of the Standard Chartered Bank, Barakhamba Road, against Indian Technomac Company Limited and its directors including the present petitioner.

3. as per the allegations, the above said company has availed certain credit facilities from the complainant bank including overdraft facility and Non fund facility. The Letter of Credit were opened by the bank and the sanctioned amount under the Letter of Credit were not paid by the said accused No.1 Company which was paid by the complainant bank. It is alleged that the accused company was required to repay the amount paid by the complainant bank under Letter of Credit alongwith accrued interest on or before 30.07.2013 which was not paid.

4. Prior to the registration of the present FIR, another FIR No. 0009/2016 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons at PS CID, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 210, 217, 218, 120-B IPC and Section 5 and 7 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices act and Section 13 (1)(d)(ii) of P.C. act.

5. The Standard Chartered Bank in February 2011 sanctioned a Working Capital Facility (hereinafter referred to as 'Finance Facility') to the Indian Technomac Company Ltd. vide sanction letter dated 10.02.2011 bearing reference No. 10087739 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said banking arrangement/facility letter.

6. The petitioner and co-accused R.K. Sharma signed and executed various documents at the Barakhamba Road Branch of Standard Chartered Bank. Various meetings between accused as well as officers of Standard Chartered Bank also took place in the Barakhamba Road Branch of the bank. after the terms and conditions of the banking arrangement/facility letter was accepted, a Board of Resolution dated 17.02.2021 was passed by the Indian Technomac Company Ltd. (accused No. 1.) thereby authorizing R.K. Sharma, accused No. 2 to sign and execute the documents on behalf of Indian Technomac Company Ltd. (accused No. 1). The facility which was given by the bank to Indian Technomac Company Ltd. was a Non-Fund based facility, whereby Standard Chartered Bank agreed to open Letter of Credit as and when there was a request from the accused.

7. after the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the facility letter, the following documents were executed by the Indian Technomac Company Ltd (accused No 1): (1) Demand Promissory Note, (2) Letter of Continuity for DPN (3). Working Capital Demand Loan agreement (4) Hypothecation agreement (5) Indemnity (6) Letter of Set off (7) Fax Indemnity (8) Scan Indemnity (9) Personal Guarantee of Mr. R.K. Sharma (10) Personal Guarantee of Mr. Vinay Sharma (11) Letter of No Commission from the Company (12) Pre Shipment (13) Post Shipment agreement (14) Corporate Guarantee from Thunder Traders Limited (15) Corporate Guarantee from Gurupath Merchandise Limited (16) Undertaking under Section 372a from Thunder Traders Limited (17) Undertaking under Section 372a from Gurupath Merchandise Limited. Subsequently, Indian Technomac Company Ltd (accused No. 1) through co-accused (accused No. 2) made a request that the non-fund facility of Rs 30 Crores be modified so that an amount of Rs. 10 Crores is made available as a fund based facility within the overall limit of Rs. 30 Crores of non- fund facility for the purposes of opening Letters of Credit. an amended Banking Facility letter was issued which was duly accepted by the Indian Technomac Company Ltd. (accused No. 1) through R.K. Sharma (accused no 2) and accused No. 3 (Petitioner).

8. Subsequently, on various dates, the non-fund facility of Rs. 20 Crores was utilized by Indian Techn