Mumbai, August 11th, 2022: The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has refused bail to Dinesh Amarnath Pandey, a 44-year-old man from Delhi, in connection with a significant bank fraud case involving ICICI Bank. Pandey is accused of being a key beneficiary in a scheme that defrauded the bank of a substantial sum through a fraudulent home loan application.
The order, pronounced on August 10th, 2022, by Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Menjoge, effectively keeps Pandey in custody as the court cited the seriousness of the offense, the large amount of money involved, and the applicant’s apparent involvement in diverting the defrauded funds.
The case, registered as C.R. No. 138/2016 at Pantnagar Police Station, stems from a complaint filed by Atishdas Kishordas, an employee of ICICI Bank’s Ghatkopar Branch. The complaint alleges that in 2013, Prasad Shetty and his wife Pournima Shetty applied for a home loan of Rs. 99,90,000 to purchase a flat in Andheri. After processing documents, the loan was sanctioned. However, when the Shettys defaulted on loan repayments, bank officials initiated a follow-up. This investigation uncovered that Ijjat Haji Ali Ajgar, the purported owner of the flat, had never entered into any sale agreement with the Shettys and was still residing in the property. This revelation indicated that the loan application was based on fraudulent documentation.
During the investigation, it was revealed that a staggering Rs. 95,00,000 from the fraudulently obtained loan was transferred into an Axis Bank account belonging to “Shubham Enterprises,” a proprietorship owned by the applicant, Dinesh Amarnath Pandey. The prosecution alleges that Pandey then meticulously laundered these funds. He allegedly purchased a plot of land in his wife’s name, constructed a house on it, and subsequently sold the property in 2019 to one Ramnaresh Gupta. With the proceeds from this sale, Pandey is accused of purchasing another house in the name of his wife, Sarladevi Pandey.
Furthermore, the investigation revealed a series of rapid fund transfers from Pandey’s Shubham Enterprises account to other entities under his control. On November 19th, 2019, Rs. 25,00,000 was moved to “Shiva Enterprises,” followed by another Rs. 25,00,000 to the same entity on the same day. Subsequently, on November 25th, 2019, Rs. 10,00,000 was transferred from “Shiva Enterprises” to “Shreya Enterprises,” further obscuring the money trail.
In his bail application, Pandey, represented by Advocate Arvind Singh, claimed innocence. He argued he had no connection to the loan application, had never visited the bank, and highlighted a significant three-year delay in filing the FIR. He also pointed out that a co-accused, Anant Pratap Tejbahadur, a former Business Sales Manager at ICICI Bank, had already been granted bail. Pandey contended that his continued detention since March 23, 2022, served no purpose and pleaded for release.
However, the State, represented by APP Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, strongly opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the ongoing investigation. The prosecution argued that Pandey, being a resident of Delhi, posed a flight risk and might not appear for court proceedings in Mumbai if released on bail.
Judge Menjoge, after reviewing the charge sheet and considering arguments from both sides, sided with the prosecution. The court meticulously examined the flow of funds as detailed in the charge sheet, highlighting the transfer of Rs. 95,00,000 into Pandey’s account and the subsequent series of property purchases and fund diversions. This, the court stated, established “prima facie involvement” of Pandey in the fraudulent scheme.
The court also took note of the vast amount of money defrauded from ICICI Bank and underscored the seriousness and gravity of the economic offense. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns about Pandey’s residency in Delhi, agreeing that it raised concerns about his likelihood of consistently attending court proceedings in Mumbai if granted bail.
Referencing numerous Supreme Court precedents concerning bail jurisprudence, the court concluded that considering the severity of the charges, the evidence indicating Pandey’s involvement, the large sum of money, and the potential flight risk, granting bail was not warranted.
Consequently, Bail Application No. 1781/2022 was rejected. The order, signed and uploaded on August 10th, 2022, ensures Dinesh Amarnath Pandey remains in judicial custody as the investigation into the ICICI Bank loan fraud case progresses. The case serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within the banking system and the stringent measures taken by the courts when dealing with sophisticated financial crimes.