IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.756 OF 2017
IN
CBI REMAND APPLICATION NO.1116 OF 2017
Vijay Dashrath Bhagat, aged 40 years, )
R/o. Chandmari, Ward No.10,
)
District Golaghat, Assam – 785 621
)
AND
)
Servant Room, House No.14, Ajanta
)
Path Bye Lane – 1, Beltola, Guwahati,
)
Asam.
)..Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State (Through CBI, EOW Mumbai.) )
No. RC 09/E/2017 Mumbai,
)..Respondent/CBI, EOW.
Appearance :
Ld.Adv. Mr. Santosh S. Chari for applicant/accused.
SPP Mr. J. K. Sharma for the respondent/CBI, EOW, Mumbai.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI VIVEK V. KATHARE
DATE : 13/12/2017 (C.R.NO.53)
ORAL ORDER
1.
The applicant/accused Vijay Dashrath Bhagat filed this
application for grant of bail u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., on account of his arrest
by the Officers of CBI, EOW, Mumbai/respondent, in a crime bearing
No. RC 09/E/2017, registered with CBI, EOW, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable u/s.420 r/w Sec.120B of the IPC.
2.
In nutshell, the facts of the case would reveal that the case
is registered on the basis of written complaint dated 10/06/2017, filed
by Mr. Mukul Kumar, Dy. General Manager, IDBI Bank, against
MYNK1906 Industries India Ltd., Ms. Kavya Singh, Promoter, MD &
..2..
..2 ..
Guarantor & Mr. Navmeet Arora, the Wholetime Director of the said
company, Mr. Vijay Dashrath Bhagat, Director of the said company &
unknown others on the allegations that the said company approached
for financial assistance in April, 2014 with IDBI Bank, which had
sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of Rs.500 Lakh to the said
Company for import of machinery from Italy and indigenous machinery
from M/s. Pedrini Industries Singapore Limited, in connection with
installation of the imported machinery at its project site at Wada,
Thane.
The company was also sanctioned working capital limits of
Rupees One Crore for meeting their working capital requirements.
After sanction of instant credit facilities, the amount remitted into the
account of foreign based supplier for the purpose of purchasing the
machineries, but the said amount was diverted from the suppliers
account into personal account of one of the director of the borrower
company and thereby the accused persons caused wrongful loss to the
tune of Rs.4.20 Crores to the complainant bank and corresponding
wrongful gain to them.
3.
It is contended that the present applicant is not the
beneficiary of the alleged siphoned amount, in as much as the other
Director namely Ms. Kavya Singh is the main beneficiary in whose
account the siphoned amount has been transferred and she has been
granted anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court. It is further
submitted that nothing has been recovered at the instance of the
applicant/accused during his police custody and consequently, the
Investigating Officer has prayed for the Judicial Custody of this
applicant/accused.
Thereby, it is suggested that the purpose of
..3..
..3 ..
investigation so far as this accused is concerned is over.
4.
The respondent/CBI has resisted the application by filing
their detail Reply. It is contended that the applicant/accused was the
whole time Director of the Company and had submitted the requisition
for grant of credit facility from IDBI Bank in the capacity of Director as
well as guarantor for loan amount obtained. He was also one of the
authorized signatory to execute the documents on behalf of the
Company and considering the role and complicity of present
applicant/accused in the commission of offence, he is not entitled to be
released on bail by way of parity. Hence, prayed for rejection of the
Bail Application.
5.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties, it is seen
that admittedly the present applicant/accused is not the beneficiary of
the amount siphoned from the bank and secondly, during the custodial
interrogation of the applicant/accused by CBI, no any incriminating
document or article have been recovered at his instance. It is further
seen that the documents purportedly executed by the applicant/accused
are at the instance of the then Managing Director of the Company late
Mr. Navmeet Arora. As the investigation in the case, so far the role &
complicity of present applicant/accused is concerned, is almost over.
Therefore, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by way of further
detention of the applicant/accused behind the bars.
6.
The relevant circumstances consequent to the registration
of the offence also needs some consideration. It is seen that the prime
..4..
..4 ..
accused in the case i.e. Mrs. Kavya Amit Singh, who is the beneficiary of
the siphoned amount, has preferred Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1156/2017, before the Hon’ble High Court, which by an order dated
07/07/2017, was granted an adinterim anticipatory bail in connection
with the aforesaid case. The said order was subsequently confirmed by
the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 21/07/2017, by recording the
statement of the CBI Officers that the application can be disposed off by
directing the applicant therein to attend further Investigating Officer
and to cooperate with the investigation machinery by furnishing all
requisite documents.
7.
It is equally material to note that other coaccused Rakesh
Singhvi, the then DGM of IDBI Bank, consequent to rejection his bail
application by the Ld. Trial Court, preferred regular Bail Application
No.2289/2017, before the Hon’ble High Court and by order dated
03/11/2017, he was directed to be released on bail. While, releasing
the said accused on bail, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to observe
that undisputedly, the main role in crime in question is that of Kavya
Singh, who is the Director of Company and also obtained the loan
amount.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that FIR lodged
against the accused persons by the IDBI Bank itself shows that the
matter was examined initially by the Staff Accountability Committee of
the Bank and it is found that there is no vigilance angle to the matter so
far as the staff of the Bank is concerned and the employees of the Bank
are only liable for operational lapses.
It is further observed by the
Hon’ble High Court that the Director of the Company, who cheated IDBI
Bank, is granted anticipatory bail by this Court (Hon’ble High Court) on
..5..
..5 ..
the concession given by the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI and on that
count, the bail application of Rakesh Singhvi, was also allowed.
8.
It is equally a matter of record that other coaccused
namely Aarti Bhat & Anand Singh were also granted regular bail by the
Hon’ble High Court, consequent of rejection of their bail application by
the Trial Court.
9.
Therefore, it is seen that the role played by the present
applicant as compared to the accused already released on bail, is much
lesser & graver in nature.
10.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied upon the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of, “Sanjay Chandra V/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) Supreme Court Cases 830”,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that, “The object of bail is
to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be
required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called
upon.
The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty”.
11.
In the circumstances of the case, the applicant on the
ground of parity deserves to be released on bail, in terms of order
below :
..6..
..6 ..
ORDER
1. Bail
Application
No.756/2017
in
CBI
Remand
Application
No.1116/2017, filed by the applicant/accused Vijay Dashrath
Bhagat, is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant/accused, arrested in case No. RC 09/E/2017,
registered with CBI, EOW, Mumbai, for the offences punishable
u/s.420 r/w Sec.120B of the IPC, he be released on executing of PB
& SB of Rs.50,000/ with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount, on the following conditions :
a. The applicant/accused shall mark his attendance with the
Investigating Officer as & when required under written
intimation by the Investigating Officer, till further orders.
b. The applicant/accused shall furnish his permanent residential
address alongwith documentary proof of his address & cell
number of himself and his two close relatives and change in
address, if any.
c.
The applicant/accused shall not leave the territory of India
without prior permission of this Court and surrender his
Passport, if any, to the Registrar Sessions, as condition
precedent for his release on bail.
d. The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or any promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such fact to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with
the evidence.
e. The applicant/accused shall not indulge into any criminal
activities during the bail.
..7..
..7 ..
3. In the event of breach of any of the conditions as above, the
prosecution is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.
4. Application is hereby disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Mumbai:
Date: 14/12/2017
Dictated on
: 14/12/2017.
Transcribed on : 14/12/2017.
Signed on
:
(VIVEK V. KATHARE)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53, Gr. Bombay.
..8..
..8 ..
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
14/12/2017
at about 05.15 p.m.
(Mrs. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Court Room No.53
Name of the Hon’ble Judge
: Shri. Vivek V. Kathare
(Court Room No.53)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
: 14/12/2017
Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 14/12/2017
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 14/12/2017
at about 05.15 p.m.
….