Mumbai, December 14, 2017 (CBI Special Court): The Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Shri Vivek V. Kathare (C.R.No.53), has granted bail to Vijay Dashrath Bhagat, a Director of MYNK1906 Industries India Ltd., who was arrested by the CBI, EOW, Mumbai, in connection with a bank fraud case (No. RC 09/E/2017) involving charges under Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Bhagat, aged 40, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. following his arrest in the case concerning alleged fraudulent financial assistance obtained from IDBI Bank.

Prosecution’s Case:

The case stems from a complaint filed by IDBI Bank alleging that MYNK1906 Industries India Ltd., through its promoters and directors, including Bhagat, availed a Rupee Term Loan of ₹500 Lakh for importing machinery. The bank also sanctioned working capital limits of ₹1 Crore. It was alleged that the funds remitted for machinery purchase were diverted into the personal account of one of the company’s directors, causing a wrongful loss of ₹4.20 Crores to the bank.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Bhagat’s counsel, Mr. Santosh S. Chari, argued that his client was not the beneficiary of the siphoned funds, with another director, Ms. Kavya Singh, being the primary beneficiary who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. It was also submitted that no incriminating documents or articles were recovered from Bhagat during his police custody, suggesting the investigation concerning his role was largely complete. The defense further pointed out that the documents purportedly executed by Bhagat were at the behest of the then Managing Director of the company, the late Mr. Navmeet Arora.

CBI’s Opposition:

The CBI, represented by SPP Mr. J. K. Sharma, opposed the bail, contending that Bhagat, as a whole-time Director and guarantor, played a crucial role in obtaining the credit facility and executing relevant documents. The CBI argued that his complicity in the offense did not warrant release on parity.

Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail:

Special Judge Shri Vivek V. Kathare observed that Bhagat was admittedly not the beneficiary of the siphoned amount, and no incriminating material was recovered from him during custodial interrogation. The court also noted that the documents he executed were seemingly at the direction of the then Managing Director. Considering that the investigation concerning Bhagat’s role appeared to be nearing completion, the court saw no significant purpose in his continued detention.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the significant circumstance that the primary beneficiary, Ms. Kavya Amit Singh, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The High Court’s order was based on a statement from CBI officers that the matter could be disposed of by directing Ms. Singh to cooperate with the investigation.

The court also noted that another co-accused, Rakesh Singhvi (then DGM of IDBI Bank), was granted regular bail by the High Court, with the High Court observing that the main role in the alleged crime was that of Kavya Singh. The High Court also noted that an internal committee of IDBI Bank found no vigilance angle concerning the bank staff, attributing any lapses to operational issues.

The court further pointed out that other co-accused, Aarti Bhat and Anand Singh, had also been granted regular bail by the High Court after their bail applications were rejected by the trial court.

Considering the comparatively lesser and less grave role played by Bhagat compared to the accused already released on bail, the court found him deserving of bail on the grounds of parity. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the accused’s appearance at trial and that deprivation of liberty should not be punitive before conviction.

Final Order:

The court passed the following order:

1. Bail Application No. 756/2017 is allowed.
2. Bhagat shall be released on executing a Personal Bond (PB) and a Surety Bond (SB) of ₹50,000 with one or two solvent sureties of a like amount, subject to the following conditions:
   • He shall mark his attendance with the Investigating Officer as and when required under written intimation, until further orders.
   • He shall furnish his permanent residential address with documentary proof and his and two close relatives’ cell numbers, and notify any change in address.
   • He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport to the Registrar Sessions as a condition precedent for release.
   • He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case facts to dissuade them from disclosing information to the Court or the police, nor shall he tamper with evidence.
   • He shall not indulge in any criminal activities during the bail period.
3. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.
4. The application was disposed of accordingly.

This order highlights the principle of parity in granting bail, especially when the main accused or those with a more significant role have already been released. The court balanced this with conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any obstruction of justice.