:1:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
CNR No. MHCC020166172018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 964 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 1234 OF 2018
(R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai)
MANOJ HANUMANT KHARAT,
Age 28 years, S/o. Shri. Hanumant
Tukaram Kharat, Panchashil Niwas,
Yashin Nagar, Tal.Karjat,
Dist.Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra.
Applicant/
Orig. Accd. No. 2
V/s.
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Bank Securities &
Fraud Cell, BandraKurla Complex, Mumbai.
Respondent/
Orig. Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).
DATED :
16th January, 2019.
Mr. Sandeep Bali, Ld. Adv. for the applt./original accd. no. 2.
Mr. Omprakash, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respdt.
ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
:2:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
accused no. 2 Manoj Hanumant Kharat for regular bail u/sec. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against whom the offences punishable
u/sec. 120B r/w 409 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been
registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused no. 2 and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has strongly objected to grant prayer in
the application. It has given say on the application on record vide Ex2.
I have perused the application and documents produced on record on
behalf of the applicant/accused. I have also perused the say filed on
record by the prosecution.
3
The applicant/accused has submitted through this bail
application that he was arrested by CBI on 19/12/2018.
The
applicant/accused is enlarged on bail in CBI Special Case No. 37/2018
vide order dated 12/06/2018 imposing certain conditions. He has not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case by complainant on vague and bald
allegations.
evidence
on
There are no circumstances and/or legally admissible
record,
which
even
remotely
suggest
that
the
applicant/accused has committed any offence of forgery, as alleged.
After his due selection through recruitment process, offered for
employment in the Clerical cadre of the bank as Single Window
Operator ‘A’ (SWO/A) in the scale of Rs. 720019300 by a letter dated
16/10/2014 on probation of 6 months, which was accepted by the
applicant/accused on 17/11/2014 when he reported for duty and
:3:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
thereafter by a letter dated 15/10/2015, the bank had after verification
the conduct and satisfactory police report about his character &
antecedents and on the basis of recommendation of the Senior Manager
of bank, confirmed the service of applicant/accused with retrospective
effect from 17/05/2015. The applicant/accused is lowest level clerk of
the bank and after applicant/accused joined service, he was orally
assigned the job of making entries of the documents in FINACLE duties
of bank from December 2014 till October 2016, where his duty was
only clerical i.e. mere data entry operation, as assigned to him by his
superior and he was thereafter again orally asked to work in the SWIFT
System from November 2016 to 2017, where he was assigned the job of
making entries of Bills and documents given to him by the superior.
The applicant/accused was again shifted and orally asked to do
FINACLE duties from May 2017 to December 2017 and ultimately he
was transferred to LCB Branch of the bank in the same circle by letter
dated 19/12/2017. The applicant/accused has no role or knowledge at
all of the alleged fraudulent transaction of issuing LOUs.
The
investigation in present case is complete as far as the present
applicant/accused is concerned. The entire case is based on documents
and all the documents are tendered. On the basis of mere suspicion
without any material on record, no criminal liability can be fastened as
against
the
present
applicant/accused.
In
the
result,
the
applicant/accused has prayed to allow the application.
4
The prosecution has filed its reply and submitted that as
per complaint dated 09/03/2018 lodged by Shri. Avneesh Nepalia,
DGM, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai, during April 2017,
Shri. Gokulnath Shetty, the then Dy. Manager and Shri. Manoj
Hanumant Kharat, Single Window Operator, both from Punjab National
:4:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
Bank, Brady House, Mumbai entered into a criminal conspiracy with
Shri. Aditya Rasiwasia and Shri. Ishwardas Agarwal, both Directors of
M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and
unknown others in the matter of dishonest and fraudulent issuance of
two Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) for USD 560444.44 and USD
860867.38 respectively, totalling to USD 1421311.82 (equivalent
amount of Rs. 9,09,63,956.48), favouring SBI, Antwerp, Belgium on
25/04/2017, the object of which to cheat Punjab National Bank, MCB,
Brady House, Mumbai. The said two LOUs were fraudulently issued to
M/s. Chandri Paper & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai without any
sanctioned credit limit to the company and also no 110% margin was
provided by the said company.
The accused bank officials without
obtaining required request application, documents and approval of the
authorities thereto and without making entries in the bank system,
transmitted to the overseas banks. The applicant/accused was posted
as Single Window Operator in Forex Department of Punjab National
Bank, MCB, Brady House, Mumbai during 24/11/2014 to 19/12/2017
and authorized as Maker & Checker for SWIFT Messages by using his
SWIFT User ID “331096MK” allocated to him.
He was the
maker/checker of unauthorized LOUs issued through SWIFT Message
MT 799 in favour of State Bank of India. The applicant/accused was
arrested on 19/12/2018. The case is at crucial stage of investigation
and there is every reason to believe that the arrested accused would
resort to all means for thwarting the investigation by tampering with
the evidence that remains to be collected and influence the witnesses,
which is highly detrimental to the case. Hence, the Ld. SPP for CBI has
prayed to reject the application.
5
Herein, I would like to refer the case of Nimmagadda
:5:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation [2013 DGLS (Soft.)
404], wherein the Hon’ble Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
have specifically described the considerations for bail application and
observed that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations.
6
In view of the abovementioned criteria, it is important to
mention that the prosecution has not raised any point that there is
difficulty for securing the presence of accused at the time of trial. The
prosecution has not raised any point regarding the larger interests of
the State or similar kind of consideration. A vague statement made by
the prosecution that at this crucial stage of investigation, the arrested
accused would thwart an investigation by tampering with the evidence
that remains to be collected and influence the witnesses.
7
It is clear from the record that the investigation against the
present applicant/accused is complete and chargesheet has already
been filed against him. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution
that the applicant/accused may thwart the investigation by tampering
the evidence and influence the witnesses, however no details have been
given by the prosecution as to which witnesses, the applicant/accused
may influence and what kind of evidence, the applicant/accused may
tamper. The applicant/accused himself undertakes to remain present
before this Court for the purpose of facing trial and not to hamper the
:6:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
progress of trial and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. In short,
these are vague allegations and on the basis of such vague allegations,
the personal liberty of applicant/accused can not be curtailed. There is
no any proper reason to keep the applicant/accused in judicial custody
for indefinite time.
Moreover, I have already mentioned that the
chargesheet has already been filed in the matter.
Therefore, the
applicant/accused is require to be released on bail subject to certain
conditions. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1
Bail Application No. 964/2018 in R.A. No. 1234/2018
(R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai) is hereby allowed.
2
The applicant/original accused no. 2 MANOJ HANUMANT
KHARAT is hereby directed to be released on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.
50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Further, he is hereby directed
to furnish one or more sureties of the like amount within two months.
3
The applicant/accused is directed not to leave India
without obtaining prior permission from this Court.
4
Further, till furnishing surety, the applicant/accused is
directed to surrender his passport, if any, with CBI.
5
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish his permanent
address as well as permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish addresses of
his two relatives and their permanent addresses and contact numbers to
the CBI.
:7:
7
Bail Application No. 964/2018
The applicant/accused is further directed not to tamper
with the prosecution evidence and to assist in disposal of trial.
8
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
9
The applicant/accused is hereby directed to remain present
before investigating officer once in a month, during working days, in
between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till further order.
10
Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
11
The applicant/accused is hereby allowed to be released
provisionally after furnishing cash bail of Rs. 50,000/, temporarily for
the period of two months.
12
Bail Application No. 964/2018 in R.A. No. 1234/2018
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 : 16/01/2019
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 16/01/2019
: 16/01/2019
: 16/01/2019
:
:8:
Bail Application No. 964/2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/order”.
Upload Date & Time : 16/01/2019 at 5.39 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 :16/01/2019
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :16/01/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on :16/01/2019