Bombay High Court
Shripad Govind Jere vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2022
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/7 ba 2157-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2157 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2303 OF 2021
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2157 OF 2021
Shripad Govind Jere .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Keral Mehta and Ishwar Chavan i/b
Praful Soni for the applicant.
Ms.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.
Ms.Bhavana Dubepatil for the intervenor.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 23rd AUGUST, 2022
P.C:-
1 Heard learned counsel Mr.Mundargi for the applicant
and the learned APP Ms.Prajakta Shinde for the State. Advocate
Bhavna Dubepatil is also heard for the intervenor.
2 The applicant is charged by the EOW in
C.R.No.86/2019 which invoke Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 477A, 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 46(1), 47-A
of the Bank Regulation Act, 1949.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
2/7 ba 2157-22.doc
He came to be arrested on 12/3/2022 and on
completion of investigation, through the EOW, charge-sheet is
filed where he is arraigned as accused no.15. At present, he is
detained in Taloja Central Prison.
3 The complaint lodged by one Jasbir Matta, Manager
of Recovery Cell, Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank
(PMC Bank), on being authorized by the administrator appointed
by Reserve Bank of India, narrated, that PMC Bank which is
registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies, conduct its business subject to the provisions of
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and directions issued by the RBI.
It is alleged that Mr.Joy Thomas, Managing director
and other functionaries, including the Board of Directors,
Executive of PMC Bank, intentionally reported false record of
accounts to the RBI, so as to suppress the material position of
loan accounts of HDIL group of companies. It is alleged that in
it's Advances Master Indent, (Detail of Loan Accounts) for the
year ending of 31/3/2018, submitted to RBI, the Bank replaced
44 loan accounts of HDIL and its group companies, whose
individual balance outstanding significantly higher was shown to
be comparatively low. It is also alleged that 21,049 such accounts
were actually not created in the core banking solution of the bank,
but mere entries were made in the advances Master Indent,
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
3/7 ba 2157-22.doc
merely for the purpose of conducting inspection, with the full
knowledge that the said has been camouflaged to the detriment of
the Bank and to the depositors interest.
The actual financial position of the Bank was
exaggerated and a rosy picture of the Bank was depicted,
encouraging more depositors to open accounts with the Bank to
their detriment by falsifying its true financial position. Officials
of PMC Bank including Mr.Joy Thomas, Managing Director,
Mr.Variyam Singh and other directors along with Mr.Sarang
Wadhwan, Rakesh Kumar Wadhwan, Director of HDIL were
accused as major players in the fraud.
4 As far as the applicant is concerned, he was appointed
as Director (Civil) of Yardi Prabhu Consultants and Valuers
Pvt.Ltd, which company was on the panel of PMC Bank since the
year 2004-05 and was assigned the work of preparation of
valuation reports of properties provided by the borrowers.
It is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with co-
accused Mr.Vishwanath Prabhu, the then Managing Director of
PMC Bank raised the actual value of property mortgaged by one
Tejender Sigh Bal at 6th floor, flat no.603, Bholenath Residency,
village Vadavali, Chembur, and Tejender Singh Bal insisted for
additional loan amount on the same property already mortgaged
with PMC Bank. It is alleged that the applicant in connivance
with Mr.Vishwanath Prabhu prepared false valuation report of the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
4/7 ba 2157-22.doc
property of Rs.162.60 lakhs as desired by co-accused Joy Thomas.
It is alleged in the charge-sheet, that the valuation report dated
28/6/2018 is signed by the applicant and forwarded to PMC
Bank on 12/6/2018, which shows that it was created backdated
and based on the said report, the borrower availed desired credit
facilities from PMC Bank. The accusations faced by the applicant
is, the actual value of the property was less as compared to its
market value, and that is how he is accused of contributing the
wrongful loss caused to PMC Bank, as the Bank would not realize
the actual cost of such mortgage properties, when the credited
account of such borrowers became non-performing.
5 The specific accusation faced by the applicant in the
charge-sheet is one M/s.Sapphire Land and Development Pvt.Ltd
was in debt of Rs.10 crores and it was decided by PMC Bank to
purchase the premises of the said company situated on Akurli
Road, Kandivali (East) to square up the loan. The valuation of
the said property owned by the Company was only Rs.3 crores. It
is alleged that the co-accused Joy Thomas, the Managing Director
of PMC Bank instructed to obtain fresh valuation of the property
and the applicant was contacted for revision in the valuation of
the property, justifying the purchase cost in lieu with the
settlement amount owned by the Company, for which the sale
deed was registered on 31/3/2018.
PMC Bank received a Desktop Valuation Report
dated 4/3/2019 from M.s.Yardi Prabhu Consultants and valuers
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
5/7 ba 2157-22.doc
Pvt.Ltd, where it is alleged that the fair market value was inflated
from Rs.3 crore to Rs.7.76 crore.
6 In the charge-sheet, Vishwanth Prabhu is also alleged
of a similar role and face somehow similar accusations of acting in
connivance with main accused Joy Thomas by preparing false
valuation reports.
His Bail Application was dealt by this Court (Justice
Prakash D Naik) on 20/6/2022 (Bail Application No.405/2022)
wherein, it was recorded that the prosecution has not
controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant
that amongst 75 reports of valuation, none is signed by the
applicant and the prosecution is relying on statement of
Ms.Kamaljeet Banwait, one Manjeet Kaur, and according to her
statement, she had contacted Mr.Prabhu to finalise the valuation
report and he was asked to increase the value of the properties.
Manjeet Kaur was subsequently arraigned as an accused and
therefore, the said statement was held to be not admissible.
7 Considering his long incarceration for more than two
years with the role attributed to him, he was released on bail on
20/6/2022.
When the learned APP Ms.shinde is confronted with
the said order and asked why the benefit of the said order cannot
be extended to the present applicant, she state that the certificate
dated 28/6/2018 is based on the valuation report by the present
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
6/7 ba 2157-22.doc
applicant where the market value has been indicated as
Rs.1,63,00,000/- as against the earlier report dated 21/9/2017
where the market value of the flat at Vadavli, Chembur belong to
Tejinder Bal was assessed as Rs.1,39,00,0000/-.
8 Considering that the valuation of the property as
contained in the report dated 28/6/2018 is after one year, it is no
surprise that the market value has gone up. In any case, she
concede to the fact that before the Desktop Valuation Report was
received on 4/3/2019, the property was already sold.
In such a contingency, the role that has assigned to
Vishwanth Prabhu, a valuer with M/s.Yardi Prabhu Consultants
and Valuers Pvt.Ltd, cannot be said to be different than what has
been surfaced through the charge-sheet and referred to in the
order passed on 20/6/2022.
9 In the wake of the above, since the investigation is
complete and the evidence in form of documents is already
colated in the charge-sheet, further detention of the applicant is
not necessary, pending the trial.
The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in
nature and limited to the extent of disposal of the present
applications.
Hence, the following order :-
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::
7/7 ba 2157-22.doc
ORDER
(i) Bail Application is No. 2157/2022 is allowed.
(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.86/2019 on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail security of Rs.50,000/- for a period of six weeks in lieu of surety.
(iv) The applicant shall report the Economic Offences Wing Bank II (EOW), once in two months on first Monday of the month between 11.00 am to 1.00 p.m.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
(vii) The applicant shall attend the trial Court proceedings regularly, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
In view of the disposal of Bail Application, IA No.2303/2021 stands disposed off.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 05:21:38 :::