Mumbai, December 14, 2018 (CBI Special Court): The Special Court for CBI cases at Greater Bombay, presided over by His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli (Court Room No. 47), has rejected the bail application of Mr. Sadashiv @ Mehul Durgaprasad Pandey, a 43-year-old businessman, who is an accused in a ₹17 crore bank fraud case involving the Central Bank of India.
Pandey was arrested in connection with FIR bearing RC 14/E/2017, registered by CBI EOW, Mumbai. He is accused of offences under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent),1 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic2 record) of the Indian Penal3 Code, 1860, and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Applicant’s Plea for Bail:
Mr. Omkar Mulekar, the learned Advocate for the applicant, argued that the CBI was portraying Pandey as the mastermind and ultimate beneficiary of the fraud. He claimed that Pandey had filed a complaint against a CBI officer, DSP Mr. N.S. Raju, leading to his false implication in the present case. The defense asserted that Pandey had no involvement in any sale or purchase between co-accused Ashok Singh and M/s. Royal Palms (India) Private Limited. It was stated that Pandey’s father had invested ₹1.66 crores in an SRA project of Ashok Singh, which was stalled due to litigation, prompting Pandey to demand his money back, which Ashok Singh allegedly returned.
The defense further argued that Pandey was not involved in any conspiracy, and co-accused Ashok Singh had already been granted bail. It was also pointed out that Pandey’s name was not mentioned in the FIR, he has a permanent residence with deep roots in society, and the case is based on documentary evidence, thus his detention was unnecessary.
CBI’s Strong Opposition:
Mr. Nandode, the learned Public Prosecutor for the CBI, EOW, submitted that the case was registered based on a complaint by the Central Bank of India against eight accused, including Pandey. The FIR alleged a criminal conspiracy between M/s. Ashoka Property Developers, M/s. Aashish Communications, their directors (including Ashok Kumar Singh and Aashish Kumar Singh), and others, to cheat the Central Bank of India of ₹17 crores. This was allegedly achieved by creating forged and fabricated documents and dishonestly suppressing material information.
The CBI detailed how Ashok Kumar Singh obtained an overdraft facility of ₹2 crores in the name of his firm, M/s. Ashoka Property Developers, based on allegedly forged documents and collateral security. His wife, Philomina C. Dias, stood as guarantor. Similarly, his son, Ashish Kumar Singh, obtained credit facilities totaling ₹9.75 crores for his firm, M/s. Ashish Communications System, also allegedly using forged income tax returns and balance sheets purportedly audited by a non-existent Chartered Accountant firm.
Crucially, the CBI submitted that Pandey had sent numerous emails to co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh and Ashish Kumar Singh between May 2012 and December 2013, instructing them to transfer the proceeds of the crime into bogus bank accounts of M/s. Dattaguru Constructions, M/s. Shri Enterprises, and M/s. Ahmedabad Sales Corporation. These accounts were allegedly opened by associates of the accused. The CBI stated that significant amounts, totaling over ₹4.97 crores, were indeed transferred to these accounts based on Pandey’s instructions. These companies/firms were found to be non-existent at the given addresses.
The prosecution argued that Pandey and his brother, Janardan D. Pandey (who is wanted), were the beneficiaries of the crime proceeds. An email dated December 5, 2012, from Pandey to Ashok Kumar Singh allegedly mentioned the bogus account of M/s. Ahmedabad Sales Corporation. The CBI also highlighted that Pandey had been evading investigation and was apprehended only after a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued. They argued that releasing him on bail would lead to tampering of evidence and urged the court to reject the application.
Court’s Decision and Reasoning:
His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli acknowledged that the investigation was still ongoing and that a significant amount of the crime proceeds had been transferred to accounts linked to the accused. The emails produced by the prosecution prima facie showed Pandey’s vital role in siphoning off the bank’s funds with the help of co-accused. The court noted that the investigation was in progress, and the Investigating Officer still needed to trace the money trail of the substantial financial fraud.
Regarding the bail granted to co-accused Ashok Singh, the court distinguished the situation by stating that the investigation against Ashok Singh was complete, thus the ground of parity was not applicable to Pandey.
Based on the emails presented by the prosecution, which prima facie indicated Pandey’s involvement in the crime, and the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded that this was not a fit case to release the accused on bail.
The Order:
The Special Judge (CBI) Shri S.R. Tamboli passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 813 of 2018 is rejected.
- Bail Application No. 813 of 2018 stands disposed off accordingly.
The rejection of bail underscores the seriousness with which the court views the allegations against Pandey and the ongoing nature of the investigation into the multi-crore bank fraud. The case will now proceed with further investigation and potential trial.