BA No.1657/2022
..1..

Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1657 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC02­009035­2022 )
Daljit Singh Gurbachan Sing Bal
Age: 72 Yrs, Occ: Nil
Permanent R/o: Village Jhalari,
Tahesil Baba Bakala, Distt.Amritsar
(Punjab).
At present – 10, Mount view,
Sion ­Trombay Road,
Mankhurd, Mumbai
…Applicant/Accused.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of E.O.W,
Vide C.R. No. 86/2019
Original C.R. No. 375/2019
Registered at Bhandup Police Station
Mumbai)
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:­
Mr. Nitin Pradhan, a/w Mr. Shubhada Khot Advocate for the
Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Ajay Misar ,SPP for the State/respondent.
Ms. Shruti Jadhav Adv. for complainant/ intervenor.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE,
ADDL. S.JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 04/08/2022.
ORDER
1.

This is an application filed by applicant/accused Daljitsingh
Gurbachan Sing Bal for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.1973, in Crime
BA No.1657/2022
..2..

Order
No.86/2019 U/sec 406,409,420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 201
120(B) of IPC,registered at E.O.W, Banking II, Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :­
2.

Complainant
Jasbirsingh
Matta,
Manager
of
Punjab
and
Maharashtra Co­operative Bank Ltd. ( in short PMC Bank) lodged report
against the Joy Thomas, Managing Director and other bank officers, Mr.
Warayam Sing Chairman of PMC bank, Mr.Sarang Wadhwan, the
Director, Mr.Rakesh Wadhwan and other executing of housing
Development and Infrastructure Ltd.( In short, HDIL) and it’s companies
for causing huge loss to the PMC Bank, to the tune of Rs.4335.46 Crores
by doing various criminal acts. Based on these allegations offence came
to be registered against the accused.
3.

Mr. Nitin Pradhan Advocate for applicant/accused has submitted
that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. It is his submission that
applicant Daljitsingh Bal was Director of the PMC bank from the year
2015­2017 and was member of the Executive Committee 2017­2020. As
per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, Director cannot participate in
day to day official work of Bank. Therefore, he had no option except to
rely on information put before him as Director. He was not aware of
irregularities being committed by Managing Director and other bank
officers. There is no proof that Tejinder Singh Bal is his nephew, to
whom the loan was advanced by PMC Bank. Applicant was member of
Loan and Executive committee and unless HDIL was declared as NPA,
function of said committee does not start and HDIL was never declared
as NPA. Hence, issue of borrowing loan by HDIL was never come before
the loan recovery committee.

Reserve Bank of India in PIL No.

BA No.1657/2022
..3..

Order
79/2019, has filed affidavit mentioning that HDIL loans and Advances
were sanctioned by Managing Director of PMC Bank and it was
concealed from Board of Directors of the said bank.

Hence, this
applicant has no nexus with alleged crime. Applicant is arrested on
4.2.2022 and since then he is in jail. Whole case is based on
documentary evidence and those are in possession of
Investigating
officer and hence, there is no question of tampering the same. Now,
investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. Therefore, further
detention of applicant in jail is not necessary considering his old age.
Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant /accused.
4.

Mr. Misar, SPP for the State strongly opposed the application on
various grounds. Investigating officer was present at the time of hearing
of this bail application. He also addressed about facts revealed during
investigation and prayed for rejection of bail application.
5.

Ms.

Shruti
Jadhav
Advocate,
appeared
for
complainant/
intervenor and strongly opposed bail application. She filed written
objection at Ex.3.
6.

I perused the voluminous chargesheet and heard the Advocate
for the applicant and objector/ intervenor and S.P.P. for the State. I
have gone through the Law laid down in respect of grant or refusal of
bail, in following cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court :
1]
Sanjay Chandra ­Vs­ C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,
(2012) 1 SCC 40;
2]
Moti Ram ­Vs­ State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47;
3]
Babu Singh ­Vs­ State of U.P., (1978)1 SCC 579;
BA No.1657/2022
..4..

Order
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya ­Vs­ State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC
281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre ­Vs­ State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC
694,
6]
VivekKumar­Vs­ State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati ­Vs­ NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. ­Vs­ Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978)1 SCC118.

11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC 98
13]
Puran .Vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.

14]
Neeru Yadav .Vs. State of UP,AIR 2015 SC 3703
15]
Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
17]
Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18]
Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19]
Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
20]
Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote AIR 1980 SC 785,
21]
State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia AIR 1995 SC 1198
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
26]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 8,
27]
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
BA No.1657/2022
..5..

Order
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
29]
Sushila Aggarwal vs State ( NCT) (2020) 5 SCC 1
30]
Arnab Goswami vs State of Mah. (2020) ALL MR( Cri) 4347
31]
Mohammad Zubair vs State of NCT,Cri.W.P.279/ 2022 (SC)
32]
Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI SLP(Cri) 5191/2021( SC)
Dt.11.7.2022
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated.

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

7.

In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the
chargesheet. On perusal of the same, it is found that present applicant
was working as Director of PMC bank and was also member of Loan
Recovery Committee.

BA No.1657/2022
8.

..6..

Order
As per Master circular of R.B.I. bearing UBD BPD.MC.No.8
12.05.001/2012­13 Dt. 2.7.2012, Directors are prevented from
interfering with day to day functioning of bank and in day to day
business and in the management functions. Directors are also prevented
from sponsoring any loan proposal. Thus, I find substance in the
submission of the applicant that he being Director of PMC Bank, he had
not personally visited the bank but, he had only attended meetings of
Board of Directors and had not sponsored loan proposal of Tejinder
Singh Bal.

I perused the letter Dt. 21.9.2019, written by Mr. Joy
Thomas, the then Managing Director of PMC Bank, to Chief General
Manager of R.B.I. In the said letter Mr. Joy Thomas admitted that all the
decisions for granting of overdrawals to these accounts was as per his
instructions. He further stated that the executives acted as per his
instructions. Mr. Joy Thomas further stated that though some of the
accounts of HDIL and others were not performing well, said fact was not
brought to the notice of Board of Directors and concealment of
information from the Board, auditors, regulators was due to fear of
reputational loss.
8.

Statements of Smt.Ranjana Bisen who was working as Chief
Manager were recorded on 30.11.2019, 12.12.2019 and 14.12.2019 .
Her statements show how PMC officers Ms. Karmen Rebello, Manjit
Kaur, Mr. Joy Thomas and Mr. Waryam previlaged Airways Pvt Ltd.
Statement of Anita Rupesh Koli were recorded on 30.11.2019,
12.12.2019 and 17.12.2019. She has stated that Ms. Karmen Rebello,
Manjit Kaur, Mr. Joy Thomas and Mr. Waryam were responsible for
preparing false documents acting in connivance with borrower company
owned by Rakesh Wadhwan and Sarang Wadhwan without taking
appropriate security for loan and loan of Rs.50 Crores were sanctioned
BA No.1657/2022
..7..

Order
and disbursed from June 2011 to February 2013, to them.

Her
statement is also recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C . She stated that
inspite of discrepancies in the loan proposal, same were put up before
the committee comprising members, Chairman, Managing Director,
General Manager, Dy.Manager and Manager.

Investigating officer has
recorded the statement of Manjit Kaur on 12.2.2012. She stated that she
was working as Joint General Manager of PMC Bank and Mr. Waryam
and Joy Thomas used to personally monitor the loan sanctioned to HDIL
Group.
9.

None of witnesses stated that this applicant had favoured any
person while sanctioning the loans.

So far as charge of favouring
Tejinder Singh Bal while sanctioning the single mortgage loan is
concerned, as stated above there is no proof that Tejinder Singh Bal is
nephew of present applicant. None of witnesses stated that this
applicant
had
sponsored
the
loan
application
/
proposal
Tejindersingh or asked anybody to favour him in any manner.

of
No
specific role is attributed to him except that he was not diligent in
discharge of duties as Director.
10.

Adv. Ajay Misar, S.P.P
for the state relied upon following
citations…
A]
Order in B.A. No.422/2020 Mangesh Jagtap vs PSO Lakadganj
Nagpur Dt.16.10.2020 , wherein it is held that parity is not sole
ground to grant the bail.

B]
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439
C]
Nimmagada Prasad vs CBI( 2013) 7 SCC 466
D]
CBI .Vs. Ramendu Chatopadhyay 2019 SCC Online 1491
E]
State of Bihar vs Amit Kumar ( 2017) 13 SCC 751
BA No.1657/2022
..8..

Order
F]
Anil Kumar Yadav vs State ( 2018) 12 SCC 129
G]
Sunil Dahiya vs State 2016 SCC Online Del.5566
H]
Union of India vs Hasan Ali Khan ( 2011) 10 SCC 235
I]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Rajan ( 2007) 7 SCC 528
J]
CBI vs Subramani Gopalkrishanan ( 2011) 5 SCC 296
On the other hand, intervenor relied upon following citations and
opposed the bail application….
A]
Sunil Kumar Singh vs state of U.P. 2019 SCC Online ALL 957
B]
Rekha Murarka vs State of West Bengal ( 2020) 2 SCC 474
11.

However, Honble Justice Shri. P.D. Naik while granting the bail
application No. 1620/2020 of Dr. Trupti Suhas Bane, the Co­accused ,
has discussed elaborately the Master Circular of RBI and granted bail to
Dr. Trupti Bane on 5.5.2021. Bail applications of Mukti Bavisi
(BA
No.778/20021) and Ranjit Tarasingh Nandrajog ( B.A. No. 2133/2021)
who are co­accused in this crime, are also allowed on 5.5.2021. Dr.
Trupti and Mukti were also Directors of PMC bank.
12.

Thus, I do not see any force in submission of prosecution and
objector. Not only on the ground of parity but, considering all above
mentioned other facts on record, role attributed to this applicant, I have
come to conclusion that no purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant in the jail. He is arrested on 12.2.2022.
following order.
ORDER
1.

BA No.1657/2022 is allowed.

Hence, I pass
BA No.1657/2022
2.

..9..

Order
Applicant Daljitsingh Gurbachan Sing Bal in C.R.No.86 of 2019
U/sec 409,406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 201 120(B) of
IPC, registered with E.O.W. Banking ­II Mumbai, shall be
released on furnishing PR bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/­(Rs. One
Lac Only) with one surety or more sureties in the like amount.

3.

Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash security in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ for a period of 8 weeks, in lieu of surety.

4.

Applicant shall not leave India without permission of Trial Court
and shall deposit his passport with Trial Court, if he possesses the
same.

5.

Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

6.

Bail before concerned Court.

7.

BA No.1657/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MENJOGE
MANOHARRAO
Date:
MENJOGE
2022.08.04
17:27:55
+0530
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 04.08.2022.
: 04.08.2022.
: 04.08.2022.

( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

BA No.1657/2022
..10..

Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.08.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)

Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
S.M. MENJOGE,(C.R.No.17)
Addl. Judge,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 04.08.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
04.08.2022.

Order uploaded on
04.08.2022.