:1:
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2018
(R.C. No. 14/E/2017CBI, EOW, Mumbai)
KALPESH JAYRAM KOSHTI,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Aged 41 years,
Having address at 71/848,
Panchvati Apartment, Sola Road,
Narnpura, Ahmedabad380013.
Applicant/
Orig. Accused
V/s.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
(Through CBI, EOW, Mumbai.)
Respondent/
Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).
DATED :
22nd January, 2018.
Mr. S. P. Parab, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accd.
Mr. J. K. Sharma, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/EOW/Respdt.
:2:
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
accused Kalpesh Jayram Koshti for bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against whom the offences punishable u/sec.
120(B) r/w 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code
and u/sec. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act have been
registered by CBI vide R.C. No. 14/E/2017CBI, EOW, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent. The
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised objection to grant prayer in the
application. It has given say on the application. I have perused the
application
and
applicant/accused.
documents
produced
on
behalf
of
the
I have also perused the say given by the
prosecution.
3
The applicant/accused has contended that even if the case
of prosecution is admitted as it is for the sake of arguments, the
applicant/accused
was
never
a
party
to
the
fraud.
The
applicant/accused neither was party to any representation in the entire
fraud, nor a party to any of the alleged forgery. None of the ingredients
of
alleged
offences
applicant/accused.
are
attracted,
as
against
the
present
There is no material to establish that the
applicant/accused has any time conspired with any of the coaccused
for commission of alleged fraud. It is well settled law that to bring the
accused within the ambit of conspiracy, meeting of minds has to be
established and same is absent in the entire material before the Court.
:3:
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
The employer of applicant/accused viz. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhil, from
whom the money was transferred to the accounts, was not arrested by
the CBI. The applicant/accused had not kept money in his possession,
as the amount was transferred in the accounts of said company or
individual person.
Neither the applicant/accused was aware of the
fraud played by the accused persons, nor there is anything to establish
nexus of present applicant/accused with the alleged fraud.
The
applicant/accused has already repaid the amount and the details of
same are already provided to the investigating agency.
The
applicant/accused has never been benefited in the alleged transactions
and has never been subjected to any wrongful gain, as suggested by the
complainant without there being any documentary evidence to that
effect. The entire case is based on the documentary evidence and same
are already in the custody of investigating agency and nothing remains
to be recovered at the instance of applicant/accused.
The
applicant/accused is not attributed any of the overt act in commission
of alleged offence.
The chargesheet has been filed in the present
matter, hence the custody for the purpose of investigation is not
required. In the result, the applicant/accused has prayed to allow the
application.
4
The prosecution has contended that on 29/07/2011 Shri.
Ashok Kumar Singh through M/s. Ashoka Property Developers has
applied for the overdraft facility of Rs. 2 crores under the Cent
Mortgage Scheme to the Central Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch,
Mumbai.
The same was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated
05/08/2011 issued by the branch on the basis of documents submitted
and the collateral security furnished.
His wife Smt. Philomino Dias
stood as a guarantor for the said overdraft facility. Three properties
:4:
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
were mortgaged as collateral security, of which two stood in her name
and one stood in the name of Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh. The overdraft
facility was fully availed by him, but he did not repaid the bank as per
the terms of sanction. As per the procedure, the account was classified
as NPA on 29/12/2014, on which date the outstanding amount was Rs.
2,09,44,621/. Thereafter again on 07/10/2011 Shri. Aashish Kumar
Singh, the son of Smt. Philomina Dias, through M/s. Aashish
Communication Systems has applied for the overdraft facility of Rs.
2.75 crores under the Cent Trade Scheme to the Central Bank of India,
Tardeo Branch, Mumbai. The same was sanctioned vide sanction letter
dated 29/11/2011 issued by the branch on the basis of documents
submitted and the collateral security furnished. Smt. Philomina Dias
stood as a guarantor for the said overdraft facility also. Four properties
were mortgaged as collateral security, of which three stood in the name
of Smt. Philomina Dias and one stood in the name of her husband Shri.
Ashok Kumar Singh. The overdraft facility was fully availed by Shri.
Aashish Kumar Singh, but he did not repaid the bank as per the terms of
sanction. As per the procedure, the account was classified as NPA on
27/09/2013. During the inquiry into the matter, the bank found that
the documents produced by them were forged and fabricated. There
were no such firms bearing those names and membership numbers.
Thereafter again they both have availed different kind of loans from the
bank and in all Rs. 17 crores were availed by them.
The
applicant/accused is the owner of Ahmedabad Express News Paper
Press. In the said printing press, one Shri. Ravikumar Ashokbhai Bhil is
working as a office boy and circulation boy.
On the instruction of
applicant/accused, Shri. Ravikumar Bhil had opened two bank accounts
for doing money transaction business (Havala Business).
On the
instruction of applicant/accused, money had been transferred to the
:5:
said accounts.
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
The applicant/accused had taken commission for
siphoning of Crime Proceed Money. All the transactions had been done
on the instruction of applicant/accused. Hence, the prosecution has
prayed to reject the application.
5
It has been alleged that the applicant/accused is running
printing press at Ahmedabad.
The applicant/accused said to have
opened the fraudulent bank accounts in the name of his employee Shri.
Ravikumar Ashokbhai Bhil.
As per his instructions, the money was
transferred from the account of M/s. Aashish Communication to the
account of M/s. Ahmedabad Sales Corporation. The total amount of
money transferred was Rs. 3,23,75,641. Later on an amount of Rs.
1,35,25,641 was transferred in the account of coaccused Shri.
Janardhan Pandey through Flextough Metals Bank Account with IDBI
Bank, Marol MIDC Branch, Andheri, Mumbai. The remaining amount
was withdrawn in cash. Thus, it is clear that further investigation is
going on. The allegation against the applicant/accused indicates that
the present applicant/accused has placed a vital role in siphoning off
the huge amount. Moreover, the investigation is not yet completed.
Hence, at this stage, the present applicant/accused can not be released
on bail.
In the result, the application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
1
Bail Application No. 39/2018 in CBI Remand Application
No. 40/2018 (RC No. 14/E/2017C.B.I., E.O.W., Mumbai) is hereby
rejected.
:6:
2
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
Bail Application No. 39/2018 in CBI Remand Application
No. 40/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)
(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dated : 22/01/2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 22/01/2018
: 23/01/2018
: 23/01/2018
:
:7:
Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/order”.
Upload Date & Time : 23/01/2018 at 4.30 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :22/01/2018
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :23/01/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on :23/01/2018