Gujarat High Court
Amolaksing Avtarsing Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat & on 10 January, 2013
Author: S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave, S. Dave
AMOLAKSING AVTARSING BHATIA....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/16937/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 16937 of 2012 ================================================================ AMOLAKSING AVTARSING BHATIA....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, Senior Advocate with MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2 MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent-Bank Mr. J.K. Shah, APP, for respondent-State ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 10/01/2013 ORAL ORDER
1 This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I-17 of 2012 with Udhna police station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet is filed and the investigation is over. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged 66 years. The applicant remained as a Director of the Udhna Citizens Cooperative Bank Limited from 4.2.1996 to 2.11.2010. For grant of bail, the following submissions are made:
[i] The Inspecting Officer of the Reserve Bank of India submitted report dated September 1, 2010, which reveals about irregularities in cash credit accounts and modus-operandi for withdrawal of the amount. As per the report of the RBI, the minutes in the resolutions were inserted later on.
[ii] Charge-sheet filed on 22.10.2012, basically, reveals role of the applicant, accused No.3, of remaining present in the meetings of the Loan Committee, signing resolutions, though the lonees were not genuine and fictitious, amounts were sanctioned, disbursed by the Bank Officers and employees, withdrawn by a person collecting one token on behalf of other loanees on the same day for which no record is available with the Bank to some extent, and total amount of Rs.34 crores and odd was siphoned off.
[iii] The applicant, accused No.3, was alleged to have been involved in sanctioning about 70 loan applications in the meetings held on 3.6.2002, 20.3.2009, 26.5.2009 and 15.10.2009 and the loan amount involved is Rs.3,55,75,520/- so far as the applicant is concerned.
[iv] There is no allegation that the applicant, accused No.3, is, either directly or indirectly, connected with any of the loanees and not a single amount is utilized by the applicant and there is no self-serving purpose alleged in sanctioning those loan applications. The applicant, being a Director of the Bank, is not involved with day to day functioning of the Bank. The applicant is not beneficiary of such alleged misdeeds. The only allegation is that the applicant is educated person and he had knowledge about loaning.
[v] The trial court has granted regular bail to two Chief Executive Officers of the Bank.
[vi] In the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting bail application of the applicant, in paragraph 13, it is observed by the Sessions Court that the learned APP has conceded that the applicant had not participated in creation of any such loan applications.
Considering the above, this application for bail may be considered.
3 Mr. Parthiv B. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned counsel for the Bank and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence. It is submitted that, without connivance of the applicant, no money could have been withdrawn; loans were given to non-existent persons; amounts were disbursed to one person under one token; no steps are taken to recover the amount; no application form; no withdrawal slip; and the monies were siphoned off and the applicant has committed several illegalities.
4 Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the following circumstances would emerge:
[I] The applicant is aged 66 years; charge-sheet is filed; offences are magistrate triable;
[ii] The report of RBI reveals only about irregularities;
[iii] Neither the learned APP nor the learned counsel for the Bank and the complainant is able to show that the applicant, accused No.3, has gained any pecuniary benefit out of these alleged loan transactions;
[iv] The allegation against the applicant is only to the extent of remaining present in four meetings; signing resolutions, sanctioning loan applications of 70 involving Rs.3,55,75,520/- out of Rs.34 crores and odd.
[v] Main accusations are against accused Nos. 1 and 2;
[vi] The trial court has granted regular bail to two Chief Executive Officers of the Bank.
5 In view of the above, considering the nature of allegations and role attributed to the applicant, charge-sheet is filed and investigation is over and the presence of the applicant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail.
6 Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I-17 of 2012 with Udhn a police station on his executing a bond of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to the conditions that he shall i. not take undue advantage of his liberty or misuse his liberty;
not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;
surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
mark his presence at the concerned police station on the first Sunday and third Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m for three months only;
furnish the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
shall deposit Rs.5 lakhs [Rupees five lakhs] within three months from today with the Bank, without prejudice to rights and contentions;
The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. D.S. Permitted.
(Anant S. Dave, J.) (swamy) Page 5 of 5