The seriousness of economic offences, the impact on society, and the larger interest of the public and State are important considerations in deciding on anticipatory bail applications in cases involving economic offences.

JUDGMENT

1. This is the second application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant Abhilasha Prajapati apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.RC0082018A0001 registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.28779/2021.

3. As per prosecution case, co-accused Rajesh Chutani, the then Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch Jumerati, Bhopal abused his official position and entered into a criminal conspiracy with applicant Abhilasha Prajapati, proprietor of M/s. Abhilasha & Company, co-accused Narendra Prajapati, Mahesh Agrawal and other unknown persons and in pursuance thereof dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioned and disbursed Cash Credit Limit of Rs.4 crores in the name of M/s. Abhilasha & Company while applicant Abhilasha Prajapati, Proprietor of M/s. Abhilasha & Company was not eligible for the loan as per the available documents in the loan file relating to the financial details, primary security and collateral security and in view of the relevant bank circulars. It is further alleged that applicant Abhilasha Prajapati applied for the loan of 4 crore on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the bank statement, Balance sheet, Tin registration certificate VAT returns submitted by the applicant were found forged.

4. Applicant who is the proprietor of the firm had hypothecated the coal purchased from the loan amount as primary security with the bank.She sold that coal stock finance by the bank and hypothecated to the bank without any intimation to the bank and she did not deposit sale proceeds with the bank and closed the business without any intimation to the bank. Thus applicant who was the proprietor of M/s. Abhilasha & Company in connivance with other co-accused persons on the basis of forged documents obtained a loan of Rs. 4 Crore and embezzled that amount. Applicant took that loan for the business of coal while she invested that amount in some other purpose.

5. Thus, she committed fraud with the bank.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the applicant has no connection with the firm M/s. Abhilasha & Company. The said firm was registered at the instance of co-accused Narendra Prajapati and he managed that firm and co-accused Narendra Prajapati took loan in the name of applicant. Applicant has no role in the crime. It is further submitted that the said offence was registered in the year 2018 and the applicant regularly appeared before the investigation officer during the long tenure of investigation. The charge-sheet has also been filed, so the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Applicant is a pregnant lady.

7. There is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant on the basis of forged documents took a loan of Rs. 4 Crores from the bank and embezzled that amount and committed fraud with the bank. So, the applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.5191/2021. But In this case also Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the case of economic offences seriousness of the charge has to be taken into account. In this case, it is alleged that the appl