Jharkhand High Court
Vivek Pratap Singh vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 November, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 3297 of 2016
Vivek Pratap Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the C.B.I : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, S.C
C.A.V on: 06/11/2017 Pronounced on: 18/11/2017
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with
CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 10(S)/ 2014EOWR for the offence initially
registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code
on the basis of complaint lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City
827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW,
Ranchi alleging therein that:
(i) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City has given loan
to Shirdi Sai Technopacks Pvt. Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh.
(ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek
Pratap Singh, and Sri Birendra Kumar and its banking relationship with State
Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Bokaro (SME Branch, Bokaro).
(iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named
unit on 22.08.2009 but subsequently, declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since
there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 4.89 crores plus
accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred
to Stresses Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures.
(iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been
declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery
SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under:
Shirdi Sai Technopacs Pvt. OtdPresent outstanding Rs. 4.89 crores. Notice
2
u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession
notice under section 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was
challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 93 of
2012.
(v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the
meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land
and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of
India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/201213 dated
07.03.2013that few properties of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 6745, 6775 & 6774 all dated 26.06.2009 were found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd Co. as under;
M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacsk Pvt Ltd: The properties of this unit were mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 6745 dated 26.06.2009, Sale deed No. 6775 dated 26.06.2009, Sale deed No. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 and all the above sale deeds represent fake properties as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of Advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and as per his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand.
(vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Official of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those 3 who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report.
(vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 4.89 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it is not in dispute that the loan had been sanctioned to the company after the opinion of its advocate and the valuation done by the government approved valuer had been chosen by the bank itself.
3. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an honest and sincere business. Reunka Group of companies has altogether 5 companies namely; (I) Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd (ii) Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd (iv) Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd (v) Balaji Food and Masala Co.
It has been submitted that Renuka Group of Companies has five companies altogether is testamentary of the fact that the petitioner is sincere businessman and not a criminal/offender.
With regard to the allegation regarding the alleged property being fake, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wanted to purchase land and had started searching for that. In course of such search the petitioner came in contact with Mr. Devendra Prajapati, an advocate by profession he used to deal in land sale and purchase. The said Devendra Prajapati, advocate, shown papers of land and the petitioner being satisfied 4 purchased lands by terms of registered sale deeds. After each registration of sale deed, the said Devendra Prajapati used to keep the sale deed and after completion of mutation and issuance of rent receipts used to return the sale deeds alongwith correction slips and rent receipts meaning thereby the land was made available by Devendra Prajapati who did the entire transaction, got the sale deed registered, he got the mutation done and he got the rent receipt issued.. Further, it has been submitted that the forgery committed by said Devendra Prajapati and his associates, the petitioner filed complaint Case being C.C. Nos. 2279, 2280 & 2281 of 2014 respectively. The petitioner spent his hard earned money in purchasing the land and now facing the allegation that the sale deed is fake. Such being the situation, the petitioner himself is a victim and not an offender.
4. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation the petitioner has fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when required and his statement has been recorded.
Further, it has been submitted that police after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. A supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2016 has been filed brining on record the cognizance order passed by the learned court below vide order dated 17.05.2016 under which cognizance has been taken under sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code & under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C Act, 1988.
6. On 30.08.2017, (A.B.A. No.3295 of 2016) this court took note that 5 out of total amount from different transactions, which was sanctioned to the petitioner, as it was apparent from statement of one Prabir Kumar Basu recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C during course of investigation, which comes to Rs. 35 crores whether the petitioner is in position to pay Rs. 20 crores or not, if this court inclines to admit him on bail.
7. A supplementary affidavit dated 30.10.2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in connected bail application (A.B.A. No.3295 of 2016) indicating that remaining amount he wants to liquidate. In para 4 a detailed description of property has been given. Total valuation of lands was shown as 20.5 crores to the Bank but no concrete attrances was made on behalf of the petitioner to pay the amount.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that police after completion of investigation submitted final form. The learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that the material collected by the C.B.I reveals as follows:
Investigation reveals that in the year, 2009 Shri Vivek Pratap Singh (petitioner ) and Birendra Kumar both directors of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt. Ltd having Administrative office at Demotand Hazaribagh, applied for credit facilities of Rs. 7.30 crores (400 lacs) Term loan and 3.30 lacs cash credit) for setting up a manufacturing unit for production of multilayer film which is used for high class multilayer packaging products from S.B.I Commercial Branch, Bokaro. Upon receipt of loan application, Shri Subrato Sengupta, the then Relationship manager, Medium Enterprises RMME and Shri Prabir Kumar Basu, the then Customer Support Officer CSO appraised and assessed the proposal and it was additionally assessed and recommended by Shri Kumar Rashmiratheee Singh the then Chief Manager to the Sanctioning Authority ie. Network Credit Committee NWCC Ranchi on 22.08.2009 vide Appraisal Memorandum dated 6 14.07.2009. The Sanctioning Authority ie. Network Credit Committee NWCC Ranchi vide its Meeting No. 22/200910/01 dated 22.08.2009 sanctioned the proposal of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt Ltd. and it was communicated to the S.B.I SME Branch, Bokaro on same day vide letter no. DGM (OP & CR) NW II/1604 dated 22.08.2009 for compliance. Shri Subrato Sengupta the then MERM S.B.I SME Branch, Bokaro communicated the sanction alongwith other terms and conditions of the sanction vide letter no. Cm/CR/200910 dated 22.09.2009 to the borrower Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. As per this sanction, the factory was t be set up on land covered under Sale Deed No. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. Accordingly, Term Loan Account of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt Ltd was got opened vide Account No. 30902825800 and the first disbursement was made on 24.09.2009. The Cash Credit Account of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt Ltd vide Account No. 31870366338 was also got opened and the first disbursement was made on 04.08.2011. A total of sum Rs. 3,97,70,870/ and Rs. 87,13,100/ was disbursed from the Term Loan and Cash Creidt accounts respectively of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopac Pvt Ltd. In order to protect the above mentioned loan, the Bank mortgaged the following properties as collateral securities. (1) Sale Ded No. 1400 dated 11.03.2006 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. (2) Sale Deed No. 6745 dated 26.06.2009 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh (3) Sale Deed No. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. (4) Sale deed no. 6775 dated 26.06.2009 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh.
The investigation reveals that the Title Investigation Reports of the above mentioned four properties have been submitted by accused Shri Pande Ratneshwari Prasad. He submitted TIR on sale deed nos. 6745, 6774 and 6775 on 29.07.2009 jointly. Though the Title Investigation Reports of Shri Pande Ratneshwari Prasad ws false/conditional on sale deed nos. 6745, 6774 and 6775 7 but he with malafide intention has give certificate that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh was an absolute, clear and marketable title over the properties and valid mortgage can be created and the said mortgage would be enforceable. Shri Subrato Sengupta accepted such false/conditional title investigation reports in order to favour the borrower. At the same time, Shri Pande Ratneshwari prasad intentinally submitted false /conditional title investigation reports to accommodate Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. Investigation further revealed that the land covered under Sale Deed No. 1400 dated 11.03.2006 is genuine property. However, the entire lands coverred under remaining three Sale deeds nos. 6745 dated 26.06.2009, sale deed no. 6774 dated 26.06.2009 and sale deed no. 6775 dated 26.06.2009 are belonging to the Government of Jharkhand. Investigation further revealed that as per the record of Circle Office, Sadar, Hazaribag, rent receipt bearing SI. Nos. JB/41 4078370, JB/41, 4073416 and JB/41 4073442 submitted alongwith Sale deed nos. 6745, 46774 and 6775 respectively by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh in the bank are also found to be forged and fabricated. Shri Parmeshwar Prajapati, who executed sale dedd Nos. 6745, 6774 and 6775 in favour of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh claiming as owner of the land knowing full well that he was not the owner of above lands dishonestly and fraudulently executed sale deeds in favour of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh pursuant to their conspiracy. So, considering the the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I, material collected by the C.B.I, admittedly petitionerVivek Pratap Singh has Renuka Group of Company having five subsidiary companies, on the basis of forged saledeeds of the lands which was furnished as collateral securities, he has taken huge amount of loan from the Bank and cash credit facilities for which five cases have been instituted against this petitioner being, 8
(i)CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 12(S) of 2014EOWR (ii) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 10(S) of 2014EOWR (iii) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 08(S) of 2014EOWR (iv) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 0932014S0009, (v) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 0932014S0011 in which final form has been submitted and the petitioner being principal beneficiary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/