Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Bail to Businesswoman in ₹11.94 Crore Bank Fraud Case | Geetanjali Santosh Shrivastav

Mumbai, February 3, 2024: In a significant development, the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, granted bail to Smt. Geetanjali Santosh Shrivastav, one of the accused in the ₹11.94 crore fraud involving Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The case, registered under Criminal Bail Application No. 55 of 2024, pertains to allegations of large-scale misappropriation of bank funds through a criminal conspiracy.

The Allegations:
The case stems from a complaint filed by the Chief Manager of Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank, accusing 32 individuals, including bank employees, agents, and borrowers, of forging documents to fraudulently secure loans. It is alleged that the accused created forged LIC policies, Aadhar cards, PAN cards, and other documents to obtain overdraft facilities. The funds were then siphoned off and transferred into other accounts. The total misappropriated amount was pegged at ₹11.94 crore.

Shrivastav, a borrower, was accused of securing a loan of ₹30 lakh using forged documents. The prosecution argued that she was a key conspirator alongside other accused, including former Branch Manager Vipul Patel, agents Rani Durairaj and Rajiv Biswas, and several borrowers.

Prosecution’s Opposition:
The State strongly opposed Shrivastav’s bail application, arguing that:

  1. She had absconded for over a year before being apprehended on December 9, 2023.
  2. She misappropriated the ₹30 lakh loan and transferred the amount to undisclosed accounts.
  3. Her repayment of ₹5.61 lakh was an attempt to secure relief rather than a genuine effort to rectify the wrongdoing.

The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the economic crime, which involved public money, and highlighted her alleged role in forging documents and siphoning funds.

Defense’s Argument:
Represented by Advocate S.P. Ramdasi, Shrivastav maintained that she had no malicious intent to defraud the bank. She claimed to have availed the loan through legitimate channels and made partial repayments amounting to ₹5.61 lakh. Shrivastav asserted that the alleged forgery and fraudulent practices were conducted by the bank’s former Branch Manager and agents, and she had no involvement in creating the fabricated documents.

Her counsel pointed to the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused, including borrowers Mangesh Mhatre and Vasant Mhatre, were already granted bail.

The Court’s Ruling:
After reviewing submissions from both parties and the case documents, Judge Tapkire noted:

  • The main accused, including the former Branch Manager Vipul Patel and agents Rani Durairaj and Rajiv Biswas, had significant roles in orchestrating the fraud.
  • Shrivastav’s role was limited to being a borrower who had made partial repayments and offered to continue repaying the loan.
  • The principles of parity warranted her release, as other similarly placed accused had been granted bail.

However, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure her presence during the trial, the court imposed stringent conditions.

Bail Conditions:
Shrivastav was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10 lakh and two solvent sureties of the same amount. Additional conditions included:

  1. She must attend all trial hearings without fail.
  2. She is prohibited from tampering with evidence or witnesses.
  3. She cannot leave India without prior court approval.
  4. She must provide updated contact information and ensure compliance with court directives.

Case Background:
This case highlights a larger issue of economic fraud in India’s banking sector. Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank reportedly suffered significant financial losses due to a conspiracy involving its employees and external agents. The case was registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery (Sections 464, 465, 467, 468), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), and cheating (Section 420).

The investigation has so far resulted in the arrest of six individuals, while several others, including the main accused, remain in custody.

Implications and Next Steps:
Shrivastav’s bail signals a cautious judicial approach balancing individual rights and the seriousness of financial crimes. The case is expected to proceed to trial, with key accused still under investigation.

For the accused granted bail, compliance with court-imposed conditions will be crucial, as any violation could lead to further legal consequences. Meanwhile, the focus remains on uncovering the complete extent of the fraud and ensuring accountability for those involved.

Conclusion:
The case underscores the judiciary’s role in adjudicating complex financial frauds and upholding the rule of law. It also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by the banking sector in preventing such fraudulent activities.