SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Manoj Kaul – Applicant
Versus
CBI – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4852 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Syed Imran Ibrahim, Anurag Vajpeyi, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sanjay Kumar Yadav

The judgment established the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the country, and the stringent view to be taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences.

Headnote:

Economic Offences - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act] - The court discussed the nature of economic offences, the severity of punishment, and the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences. The judgment highlighted the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the country, and the stringent view to be taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. The court emphasized the deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds involved in economic offences, and the need to consider the larger interests of the public and the state in such cases. The judgment also emphasized the menace of corruption and the need to refuse bail if the offence is serious and of huge magnitude, particularly in economic offences.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving economic offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The case pertained to the syphoning off of a huge amount of money from Corporation Bank by the accused-applicant in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the country, and the stringent view to be taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. The court highlighted the deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds involved in economic offences, and the need to consider the larger interests of the public and the state in such cases. The judgment also emphasized the menace of corruption and the need to refuse bail if the offence is serious and of huge magnitude, particularly in economic offences.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving economic offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of economic offences, the severity of punishment, and the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences. The judgment highlighted the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the country, and the stringent view to be taken by the court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. The court emphasized the deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds involved in economic offences, and the need to consider the larger interests of the public and the state in such cases. The judgment also emphasized the menace of corruption and the need to refuse bail if the offence is serious and of huge magnitude, particularly in economic offences.

Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was rejected, but the accused-applicant was provided with the opportunity to surrender before the trial court and apply for bail, with the assurance that the bail application would be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manish Tewary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Bajpai, for the accused-applicant as well as Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’).

2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case No.01 of 2022, arising out of RC No.219 2019 E 0006, under Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/EO-1, New Delhi.

3. The FIR in question was registered on 29.6.2019 under Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against accused M/s Naftogaz India Private Limited, Mahadoom Bawa, Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta, Ram Murti Devi, Vijay Kumar, Vyas Dev, Ravinder Pandita and K. Gangadharan on the basis of a written compliant dated 27.6.2019 filed by Ms. Beena Vaheed, Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head, Delhi (North) of erstwhile Corporation Bank, New Delhi.

4. During the year 2009-10 to 2012-13, M/s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited having registered office at E 14/13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director Sri Mahadoom Bawa was availing credit facilities of Rs.472.79 Crores from the consortium of eight banks including Corporation Bank, Mid Corporate Branch, Sector-18, Noida, U.P.. The said branch of the Corporation Bank had sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20 Crores and LC/BG for Rs.85 Crores to M/ s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited. The said cash credit facilities were secured by Paripassu charge on Book debts/current assets amounting to Rs.528.16 Crores, pledge of FD amounting to Rs.12.75 Crores, Plant, machinery and other movable assets amounting to Rs.3.20 Crores, Residential building situated at Plot No.13, Street No.E-14M, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi of the company valuing Rs.5.91 Crores and residential property situated at 51-A, Khasra No.75, Arjun Nagar, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi in the names of guarantors namely accused Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta and Ram Murti Devi.

5. The account turned into NPA with outstanding balance of Rs.92.21 Crores on 22.11.2012 due to non-payment by the party. Thereafter, in the year 2013 accused Vijay Kumar and Vyas Dev also stood as guarantors in the loan account of the company and mortgaged another immovable property bearing Plot No.H-7, Khasra No.79/6/1, Laxmi Park, Nangloi Jat, Delhi admeasuring 1000 Sq. Yards owned jointly by them as security exclusively to Corporation Bank. Value of the said property was done by co-accused Ravinder Pandita and this property was assessed to be of value of Rs.20 Crores.

6. During the course of investigation, it was found that the property situated at Plot No.51A, Khasra No.75, Arjun Nagar, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi was not in the name of guarantors, namely, Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta and Ram Murti Devi, rather it stood in the names of different persons and the title deeds submitted with the Bank were defective. The title deed of Plot No.H-7, Khsra No.79/6/1, Nangloi Jat, Delhi deposited with the bank was also defective. It was found that the signatures of the vendor of the original sale deed available with the bank and its certified copy were also slightly different. Further, the book debt statement submitted to the bank a on 31.7.2012 was also bogus.

7. The present accused-applicant was managing the affairs of M/s H M Informatics Private Limited. The investigation further revealed that with the intention to further cheat the bank, the accused Mahdoom Bawa in conspiracy with accused Ramesha JS and the present accused-applicant submitted an application dated 15.3.2012 to Corporation Bank, Sector-18, Noida for opening of LC for total amount of Rs.3,64,23,746/- in favour of M/s H M Informatics Private Limited for procurement of various electrical items like cable, earthing system, switch, poles etc. Subsequently, accused Ramesha JS opened LC No.2012/22 in favour of M/s H M

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top