Gujarat High Court
Pullam Pilavil Takatil Ravindra Vasu ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 February, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
PULLAM PILAVIL TAKATIL RAVINDRA VASU NAIR....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/792/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 792 of 2013 ================================================================ PULLAM PILAVIL TAKATIL RAVINDRA VASU NAIR....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: Mr.N.D. NANAVATY, Senior Advocate with MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR.MAULIK G. NANAVATI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for Respondent No.1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 07/02/2013 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, Dist.Surat 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 70 years. The applicant remained as a Director of the Udhna Citizens Cooperative Bank Limited, Surat from 04.2.1996 to 2.11.2010. The name of the applicant is not there in the FIR. The applicant came to be arrested on 14.8.2012. The applicant is a signatory to four resolutions of the Board of Directors meeting, which was being headed by the accused No.1 shown in column No.2 of the chargesheet, whereby loan files 49 in number, put up by the employees of the Bank, were sanctioned. 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 accused No.6, 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.6, was alleged to have been involved in sanctioning about 49 loan applications in the meetings held on 20.3.2009 and the loan amount involved is Rs.3,55,75,500/- so far as the applicant is concerned.
[iv] There is no allegation that the accused No.6, 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.3, Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned counsel for the Bank and Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, 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.
3.1 In addition to above submissions made while opposing the bail application, Shri Maulik G. Nanavaty, has vehemently submitted that the applicant was present in the meeting held on 20.3.2009 of Loan Committee consisting of Board of Directors and the Chairman and, proceedings of the meeting recorded reveal that the loanees were called for and, after deliberations and discussions about stock and working capital of the business and limit prescribed, the Committee had decided to disburse the loan. However, at the end of investigation, it is revealed that none of the loanees was present, nor even applications by the loanees contained proper requisite data and, except printed stationery, nothing was presented before the Loan Committee, to which the applicant was one of the members. It is further submitted that even Manager of the Bank has informed and intimated the Director, who was also a member of the Loan Committee. Despite illegality and irregularities of disbursing the loan, the resolution was passed. It is further submitted that amount was disbursed by cheques and was encashed by single person and thereafter, the cash amounts have reached to the applicant-accused. It is also submitted that the applicant, involved in the serious crime, is not to be enlarged on bail.
4. Co-accused, Amolaksing Avtarsing Bhatia, vide order dated 10.1.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.16937 of 2012, was considered for bail by this Court where the above aspects were taken note, meaning thereby, fictitious loan applications and, the allegations contained in the chargesheet that none of the loanees was genuine including the amount sanctioned, disbursed and withdrawn.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the following circumstances would emerge:
[I] The applicant is aged 70 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 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 one meeting; signing resolutions, sanctioning loan applications of 49 involving Rs.3,55,75,500/- 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.6
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.
7. 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 Udhna police station, Dist.Surat, on his executing a bond of Rs.25 lakh (Rupees twenty five 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.10 lakhs [Rupees ten lakhs] within four weeks 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.) chandresh Page 6 of 6