IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2017
IN
CBI REMAND APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2017
Nitin Prabhakar Date, aged about 52 yrs )
R/o. B104, Fortune Avenue Apt.
)
B/h Nashik 04, Matoshri Pearl Building )
Skeermarg Mahim West 400 01
)..Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State (Through CBI, EOW Mumbai.) )
No. RC 09/E/2017 Mumbai,
)..Respondent/CBI, EOW.
Appearance :
Ld.Adv. Mr. Amit Date & Ms. Anjali Thakoor for applicant.
SPP Mr. J. K. Sharma for the respondent/CBI, EOW, Mumbai.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI VIVEK V. KATHARE
DATE : 27/11/2017 (C.R.NO.53)
ORAL ORDER
1.
The applicant/accused Nitin Prabhakar Date filed this
application for grant of bail u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., on account of his arrest
by the Officers of CBI, EOW, Mumbai/respondent, in a crime bearing
No. RC 09/E/2017, registered with CBI, EOW, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable u/s.420 r/w Sec.120B of the IPC & u/s.13(1)(d) r/w
Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.
In nutshell, the facts of the case would reveal that the case
is registered on the basis of written complaint dated 10/06/2017, filed
by Mr. Mukul Kumar, Dy. General Manager, IDBI Bank, against
MYNK1906 Industries India Ltd., Ms. Kavya Singh, Promoter, MD &
Guarantor & Mr. Navmeet Arora, the Wholetime Director of the said
company, Mr. Vijay Dashrath Bhagat, Director of the said company &
..2..
..2 ..
unknown others on the allegations that the said company approached
for financial assistance in April, 2014 with IDBI Bank, which had
sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of Rs.500 Lakh to the said
Company for import of machinery from Italy and indigenous machinery
from M/s. Pedrini Industries Singapore Limited, in connection with
installation of the imported machinery at its project site at Wada,
Thane.
The company was also sanctioned working capital limits of
Rupees One Crore for meeting their working capital requirements.
After sanction of instant credit facilities, the amount remitted into the
account of foreign based supplier for the purpose of purchasing the
machineries, but the said amount was diverted from the suppliers
account into personal account of one of the director of the borrower
company and thereby the accused persons caused wrongful loss to the
tune of Rs.4.20 Crores to the complainant bank and corresponding
wrongful gain to them.
3.
It is contended that the present applicant is not concerned
with the present crime nor there is any connivance with the persons
arrested in the case.
Even the Staff Accountability Committee after
obtaining the written submission of the Officers has observed that no
vigilance angle in the conduct of any officer as the irregularities were
operational lapses. Hence, prayed for his release on bail.
4.
The respondent/CBI resisted the application by filing their
detail Reply. It is contended that the role & complicity of the present
applicant/accused shows that he was instrumental in lending active
support by way of facilitating to the borrower company and its directors
..3..
..3 ..
for availing the Instant Credit Facility by providing grossly inflated
Valuation Report, as a result, IDBI Bank felt secure in providing Credit
Facility to the company.
Hence, prayed for rejection of the Bail
Application.
5.
It is further seen that the present applicant is admittedly
not the loan sanctioning authority. The role which could be attributed
to the applicant is minor in nature and the applicant was functioning
under the head of department and reporting to Rakesh Singhvi, the
then DGM of the Bank.
6.
The relevant circumstances consequent to the registration
of the offence also needs some consideration. It is seen that the prime
accused in the case i.e. Mrs. Kavya Amit Singh, who is the beneficiary of
the siphoned amount, has preferred Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1156/2017, before the Hon’ble High Court, which by an order dated
07/07/2017, was granted an adinterim anticipatory bail in connection
with the aforesaid case. The said order was subsequently confirmed by
the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 21/07/2017, by recording the
statement of the CBI Officers that the application can be disposed off by
directing the applicant therein to attend further Investigating Officer
and to cooperate with the investigation machinery by furnishing all
requisite documents.
7.
It is equally material to note that other coaccused Rakesh
Singhvi, the then DGM of IDBI Bank, consequent to rejection his bail
application by the Ld. Trial Court, preferred regular Bail Application
..4..
..4 ..
No.2289/2017, before the Hon’ble High Court and by order dated
03/11/2017, he was directed to be released on bail. While, releasing
the said accused on bail, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to
observed that undisputedly, the main role in crime in question is that of
Kavya Singh, who is Director of Company and also obtained the loan
amount.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that FIR lodged
against the accused persons by the IDBI Bank itself shows that the
matter was examined initially by the Staff Accountability Committee of
the Bank and it is found that there is no vigilance angle to the matter so
far as the staff of the Bank is concerned and the employees of the Bank
are only liable for operational lapses.
It is further observed by the
Hon’ble High Court that the Director of the Company, who cheated IDBI
Bank, is granted anticipatory bail by this Court (Hon’ble High Court) on
the concession given by the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI and on that
count, the bail application of Rakesh Singhvi, was also allowed.
8.
It is equally a matter of record that other coaccused
namely Aarti Bhat & Anand Singh were also granted regular bail by the
Hon’ble High Court, consequent of rejection of their bail application by
the Trial Court.
9.
Therefore, it is seen that the role played by the present
applicant as compared to the accused already released on bail, is much
lesser & graver in nature.
10.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied upon the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of, “Sanjay Chandra V/s.
..5..
..5 ..
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) Supreme Court Cases 830”,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that, “The object of bail is
to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be
required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called
upon.
The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty”.
11.
In the circumstances of the case, the applicant, on the
ground of parity deserves to be released on bail, in terms of order
below :
ORDER
1. Bail
Application
No.688/2017
in
CBI
Remand
Application
No.1016/2017, filed by the applicant/accused Nitin Prabhakar
Date, is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant/accused, arrested in case No. RC.09/E/2017,
registered with CBI, EOW, Mumbai, for the offences punishable
u/s.420 r/w Sec.120B of the IPC & u/s.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he be released on executing
of PB & SB of Rs.50,000/ with one or two solvent sureties in the
like amount, on the following conditions :
a. The applicant/accused shall mark his attendance with the
Investigating Officer as & when required under written
intimation by the Investigating Officer, till further orders.
b. The applicant/accused shall furnish his permanent residential
..6..
..6 ..
address alongwith documentary proof of his address & cell
number of himself and his two close relatives and change in
address, if any.
c.
The applicant/accused shall not leave the territory of India
without
prior permission of this Court and surrender his
Passport, if any, to the Registrar Sessions, as condition
precedent for his release on bail.
d. The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or any promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such fact to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with
the evidence.
e. The applicant/accused shall not indulge into any criminal
activities during the bail.
3. In the event of breach of any of the conditions as above, the
prosecution is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.
4. In view of the prayer made by the applicant/accused to enlarge him
on cash bail in lieu of surety, he is released on furnishing the cash
bail of Rupees Fifty Thousand only and the time of four weeks from
today has been granted to furnish the regular surety.
5. Application is hereby disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Mumbai:
Date: 27/11/2017
(VIVEK V. KATHARE)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
: 27/11/2017.
Transcribed on : 28/11/2017.
Signed on
:
..7..
..7 ..
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
02/12/2017
at about 04.40 p.m.
(Mrs. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Court Room No.53
Name of the Hon’ble Judge
: Shri. Vivek V. Kathare
(Court Room No.53)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
: 27/11/2017
Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 30/11/2017
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 02/12/2017
at about 04.40 p.m.
….