Mumbai, January 16, 2019 – The Special Judge for CBI at Greater Bombay, Shri. Jayendra C. Jagdale, today granted bail to Manoj Hanumant Kharat, a 28-year-old former Single Window Operator (SWO/A) at Punjab National Bank (PNB), Brady House, Mumbai. Kharat was accused in a case registered by the CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell (BS & FC), Mumbai, concerning the alleged fraudulent issuance of Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) to M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

Kharat, originally accused No. 2 in R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004-CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai, had applied for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He faced charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Mr. Sandeep Bali, the learned Advocate for the applicant, reiterated the contents of the bail application, while Mr. Omprakash, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI, strongly opposed the bail, submitting a written reply (Exh-2).

Applicant’s Submissions:

Kharat, who was arrested on December 19, 2018, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case based on vague and bald allegations. He highlighted that he was a low-level clerical employee who joined PNB in December 2014 as a Single Window Operator. He claimed that from December 2014 to October 2016, his duties involved mere data entry in the FINACLE system as assigned by his superiors. Subsequently, from November 2016 to 2017, he was orally assigned to work in the SWIFT system, where he only made entries of bills and documents provided by his superiors. He was later shifted back to FINACLE duties and then transferred to another branch in December 2017.

Kharat asserted that he had no role or knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transactions of issuing LOUs. He contended that the investigation, as far as he was concerned, was complete, and the entire case was based on documents that had already been tendered. He argued that mere suspicion, without any concrete material on record, could not establish criminal liability against him.

CBI’s Objections:

The prosecution, relying on a complaint dated March 9, 2018, alleged that during April 2017, Gokulnath Shetty (the then Deputy Manager) and Manoj Hanumant Kharat (the applicant), both from PNB, Brady House, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the directors of M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. to fraudulently issue two LOUs totaling USD 1,421,311.82 in favor of SBI, Antwerp, Belgium. These LOUs were allegedly issued without any sanctioned credit limit for the company and without the required 110% margin.

The CBI stated that the accused bank officials transmitted these LOUs to overseas banks without obtaining necessary request applications, documents, and approvals, and without making entries in the bank system. They pointed out that Kharat was posted in the Forex Department from November 24, 2014, to December 19, 2017, and was authorized as a Maker & Checker for SWIFT messages using his user ID. The prosecution claimed that Kharat was the maker/checker of the unauthorized LOUs issued through SWIFT Message MT 799.

The CBI argued that the investigation was at a crucial stage, and there was a strong reason to believe that Kharat would attempt to thwart the investigation by tampering with remaining evidence and influencing witnesses. They thus sought the rejection of his bail application.

Court’s Analysis and Order:

Special Judge Jagdale referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation regarding the considerations for granting bail. These include the nature of accusations, the evidence supporting them, the severity of potential punishment, the accused’s character and circumstances, the possibility of securing their presence at trial, the apprehension of witness tampering, and the larger public/State interest.

The court noted that the prosecution had not raised concerns about securing Kharat’s presence at trial or any specific threat to the larger public/State interest. The CBI’s apprehension about witness tampering and evidence destruction was described as a “vague statement” without specific details about which witnesses Kharat might influence or what evidence he might tamper with.

Crucially, the court observed that the investigation against Kharat was complete, and the charge sheet had already been filed. The court stated that on the basis of such vague allegations, the personal liberty of the applicant could not be curtailed, especially with the charge sheet already submitted. There was no proper reason to keep Kharat in judicial custody indefinitely.

Therefore, the court allowed the bail application, subject to several conditions:

1. Bail Application No. 964/2018 is allowed.
2. Manoj Hanumant Kharat is to be released on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties of a like amount within two months.
3. Kharat is directed not to leave India without prior permission from the court.
4. Until furnishing surety, Kharat is directed to surrender his passport, if any, to the CBI.
5. Kharat must furnish his permanent address and permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6. Kharat must furnish the addresses and contact numbers of two of his relatives to the CBI.
7. Kharat is directed not to tamper with prosecution evidence and to assist in the disposal of the trial.
8. Kharat shall not commit any offense while on bail.
9. Kharat is directed to remain present before the investigating officer once a month, during working days, between 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. until further order.
10. Breach of any of these conditions will lead to the cancellation of bail.
11. Kharat is allowed to be released provisionally after furnishing a cash bail of Rs. 50,000/- temporarily for two months, pending the furnishing of sureties.

This order emphasizes the importance of the stage of investigation and the specificity of allegations when considering bail. The court’s decision to grant bail after the filing of the charge sheet, despite the serious nature of the allegations, highlights the principle that pre-trial detention should not be indefinite, especially when the prosecution’s apprehensions are not substantiated with concrete details. The stringent conditions imposed aim to balance the applicant’s liberty with the need to ensure his presence during the trial and prevent any interference with the legal process.