Mumbai, Maharashtra – January 23, 2018 – A Special CBI Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Ramesh Madan Patel, a 42-year-old businessman, who is an accused in a bank fraud case involving Central Bank of India. Special Judge Shri. Jayendra C. Jagdale passed the order on January 22, 2018, denying bail to Patel, who is implicated in a case registered by the CBI’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai (R.C. No. 14/E/2017-CBI, EOW, Mumbai).
Patel faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), criminal breach of trust (Sections 406 & 409), cheating (Section 420), forgery (Sections 465, 467, 468), and using forged documents as genuine (Section 471). He is also charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2)].
Accused Claims Civil Transaction and Lack of Awareness
Mr. Jadhav, the learned advocate representing Patel, argued that there was no direct transaction between the original complainant (Central Bank of India) and his client. He contended that the money credited into the account of Patel’s firm, M/s. Krishna Fashion World, from M/s. Aashish Communication Systems was due to a legitimate civil transaction between the two entities, with civil litigations already pending between them.
The defense argued that the entire investigation was based on documents, which were already filed before the Bombay High Court, thus negating the need for Patel’s physical custody. It was also submitted that there was no evidence to suggest Patel was aware that M/s. Aashish Communication Systems had defrauded the bank, and that Patel himself was not a beneficiary of the alleged crime. The amount received, according to the defense, was solely due to business transactions between M/s. Krishna Fashion World and M/s. Aashish Communication Systems. Furthermore, Patel was portrayed as not being the prime accused in the alleged fraud.
Prosecution Alleges Direct Beneficiary Status and No Legitimate Transaction
Special Public Prosecutor Mr. J. K. Sharma, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution detailed how Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh, through M/s. Ashoka Property Developers, and his son, Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh, through M/s. Aashish Communication Systems, had availed overdraft facilities of ₹2 crores and ₹2.75 crores respectively from different branches of Central Bank of India based on submitted documents and collateral security. Both accounts were later classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) as the loans were not repaid. The bank’s inquiry revealed that the documents submitted were forged and fabricated, and that the purported firms and membership numbers did not exist. The prosecution further stated that the father and son duo had availed various other loans, totaling ₹17 crores, through similar fraudulent means.
Crucially, the prosecution alleged that Patel was a “direct beneficiary” of ₹1,42,56,275 from the account of M/s. Aashish Communication Systems with Central Bank of India, an entity owned by the wanted accused, Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh. The prosecution highlighted the discrepancy in the nature of business, with Patel’s firm dealing in readymade garments and M/s. Aashish Communication Systems involved in electronics and software, suggesting no legitimate business transaction between them.
The prosecution further pointed out that contrary to the defense’s claim of a civil transaction, available records indicated a pending civil suit between M/s. Krishna Fashion World and M/s. Flextough Metals Pvt. Ltd., owned by other wanted accused, Shri. Mehul @ Sadashiv D. Pandey and Shri. Janardhan D. Pandey. The prosecution argued that despite the lack of any apparent business dealings with M/s. Aashish Communication Systems, a substantial amount was transferred to M/s. Krishna Fashion World, and Patel had not returned this “crime proceed money,” making him the ultimate beneficiary.
Court Cites Ongoing Investigation and Risk of Hampering It
Special Judge Jagdale noted the prosecution’s allegation that Patel was a direct beneficiary of the siphoned-off amount of ₹1,42,56,275. While the defense claimed a civil dispute with another accused, Shri. Janardhan Pandey, the court emphasized that the investigation into Patel’s role was still ongoing.
Considering the significant amount of money involved in the alleged fraud and the fact that the police were still searching for some absconding accused, the court concluded that releasing Patel on bail at this stage could potentially hamper further investigation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court deemed it unsafe to grant bail and proceeded to reject the application.
This order indicates the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in significant economic offenses, especially when the investigation is still underway and there are allegations of direct financial benefit to the accused. Ramesh Madan Patel will remain in custody as the investigation continues.