Allahabad High Court
Mahdoom Bava vs C.B.I. on 14 December, 2022
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4251 of 2022 Applicant :- Mahdoom Bava Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gaurav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant- Mahdoom Bava in Case Crime No. CBI / EO-I- RC 219/2019 E 0006/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. 13(2) RW 13(1)(D) of the PC Act, 1998 & other substantive offences.
The facts in brief of the present case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 29.6.2019 by Ms. Beena Vaheed, Dy. General Manager & Zonal Head, Corporation Bank, Delhi (North) as Case Crime No. RC 219 2019 E 0006 of 2019, Police Station CBI/EO-I, New Delhi, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and substantive offences thereof, against nine persons namely (1) M/s Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mahadoom Bawa, (3) Deepak Gupta, (4) Seema Gupta, (5) Ram Murti Devi, (6) Vijay Kumar, (7) Vyas Dev, (8) Ravinder Pandita and (9) K Gangadharan related to fraud committed by Ms. Nafto Gaz India Private Limited in Noida Mid Corporate Branch of the bank. The cash credit facility was taken by Ms. Nafto Gaz from the bank. The account properly operated till 27.07.2012. Later on it started signs of sickness and subsequently on 22.11.2012 the account was declared NPA with outstanding book balance of Rs. 9221.22 lakh on that date along with interest from date. Subsequently on 03.02.2015 the account was classified by the bank as fraud and reported to Reserve Bank of India. The aggregated amount involved in the fraud was Rs. 10500.00 lakh with problematic exposure of Rs. 9280.00 (including Rs. 48.00 lakh outstanding under Forex BG). The property mortgaged was found to be having a defective title. The registered mortgage of the property was created with ICICI Bank. The report regarding the valuation of property showed it to be overvalued. The persons involved in giving the valuation report and the panel lawyer were also involved in forgery and cheating. The first information report was thus lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued while placing paragraph 21 to 23 of the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application that the applicant appeared before the investigating agency on various dates and provided the documents lying in his possession. He has received summons after which he is under apprehension of arrest. It is argued that the matter relates to discrepancy in report of valuer and the report of Advocate. It is further argued that in the year 2015 the applicant in order to show his bonafides filed a petition before High Court of Delhi and has proposed a scheme of arrangement / revival of the company. The matter is drawing the attention of the civil court. It is further argued that the valuer of the bank Ravinder Pandita has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.102022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5656 of 2022 and further the panel lawyer of the bank K. Gangadharan has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.06.2022passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4430 of 2022. Learned counsel has further argued that co-accused Manoj Kaul, Yatish Sharma, Akash Gupta and Anil Kumar have been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 01.07.2022, 29.08.2022, 02.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 4852 of 2022, 5207 of 2022, 7039 of 2022 and 9205 of 2022. The copies of the order have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. It is argued that since during the period of investigation the applicant co-operated with the investigation and now as charge-sheet has been submitted against him on which cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued against him his interest may be protected and he may be granted anticipatory bail. Further learned counsel has placed supplementary affidavit dated 08.08.2022 and while drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 3 of it has argued that there are 06 other cases against the applicant and the same are pending against him in different courts. It is argued that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the present matter relates to embezzlement of Rs. 92 crores approximately. The matter is an economic offence. While placing paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit dated 13.07.2022 it is argued that the applicant is the Managing Director of M/s Nafto Gaz India Pvt. Ltd. and was involved in fraudulently availing credit facility from the bank and then not repaying it. Further while placing paragraph 16 it is argued that mortgage deed in respect of the property of Arjun Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the Bank was given by the applicant but the said property was not recorded in the name of Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta, and Ram Murti Devi in the revenue records. The applicant gave illegal gratification to K. Gangadharan for submitting a false report, illegal search report in respect of property of Nagloi Jat, Delhi. Further the applicant had diverted Rs. 6.7 crores from the CC Account of the company to the account of M/s AB Petrol Services Pvt. Ltd. Further while placing paragraph 37 of the said counter affidavit it is argued that the applicant is involved in several other criminal cases as well as cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further argued while placing paragraph 20 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.09.2022 that the applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases and as such is a habitual offender.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the Managing Director of M/s Nafto Gaz India Pvt. Ltd. He took the facility of cash credit limit from the bank and failed to return the same. The said account was termed as NPA account. The mortgages done for securing the cash credit limit facility from the bank were forged documents. The outstanding book balance of the same was Rs. 9221.22 lakh along with the interest accrued on it. The matter has been investigated. Charge-sheet has been submitted and after taking cognizance upon the same, the applicant has been summoned. The applicant has a criminal history of 11 other cases. In so far as the co-accused persons are concerned who have been granted anticipatory bail their cases stands on an entirely different footing as that of the applicant as the applicant was the Managing Director of the company and was the direct beneficiary of the loan amount.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)