Bombay High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kapil Mali Ram Khandelwal And Anr on 16 March, 2023
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2023:BHC-AS:9428
1/3 25 APPLN 671-2018..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2018
Central Bureau of Investigation .. Applicant
Versus
Kapil Mali Ram Khandelwal and Anr. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar for the applicant.
Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b K.N. Pandey for Respondent No.1 in
APPLN 671/2018.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent No.2/State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 16th MARCH, 2023 P.C:-
1 The application is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI on 2/08/2018, on the ground of wrongful exercise of power to grant bail.
2 The application came to be filed in the year 2018 and when listed before me in the year 2023, my attention is invited to an order passed by the learned Single Judge (Justice. A.S. Gadkari) of this Court on 8/07/2022 in Criminal Application No. 669 of 2018, a similar application filed by CBI seeking cancellation of bail of one of the accused in CBI Special Case No. 37 of 2018.
After recording the finding, that the trial court has Ashish Mhaske ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 23:43:27 ::: 2/3 25 APPLN 671-2018..doc passed a reasoned order to the effect that there is no direct material indicating that the applicant was directly involved in preparation of the alleged LOU's and LOC's. Apart this, the Court was also impressed by another facet of the matter, the pendency of the application for last 4 years. 3 On taking cognizance of the fact that the CBI did not take any steps to circulate the application, it was recorded as under:
"There is another facet to the present Application. The impugned Order was passed on 4th August, 2018. Present Application under Section 439(2) impugning the said Order was filed on 3 rd December 2018 and till 14th January, 2021, the Applicant-CBI did not take any steps to even circulate the present Application before any Bench. That, on 14 th January, 2021 for the first time at the instance of learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, who had also filed a Bail Application No. 1243 of 2018, present Application was circulated before the co-ordinate Bench and the same was thereafter adjourned to 28th January, 2021. The Applicant-CBI thereafter also did not take any steps to get the present Application listed before the concerned Bench and on 8th June, 2022, this Court listed old Applications pertaining to the year 2018 for hearing. It therefore indicates that, the Applicant was not seriously interested in pursuing the present Application".
4 I have heard Mr. Venegavkar, the learned counsel for CBI and the counsel for the respondent.
I have perused the impugned order, under which the Applicant/Respondent herein is released on bail. 5 As far as the respondent is concerned, he was arraigned as accused no.9 and was arrested on 20/02/2018, being Ashish Mhaske ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 23:43:27 ::: 3/3 25 APPLN 671-2018..doc Joint President (Finance) for Gitanjali Gems Ltd and he is alleged to be one of the signatories in the accounts of Gitanjali Gems Ltd maintained by Punjab National Bank, Brady House, Mumbai. He is accused of meeting public servant on behalf of three accused companies and Mr. Mehul Choksi (A-6) for sanction/disbursement of credit facilities from time to time. It is alleged that he was privy to the conspiracy and intentionally camouflaged the identity of LOU transactions by not reflecting the same in the book of accounts of the 3 accused companies despite having knowledge about such fraudulent LOU's 6 He was released on bail by an order dated 2/08/2018 passed by the Special Court, by specifically recording that the applicant is not the master mind of the alleged crime and his role in the alleged fraud is minuscule and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.
7 I do not see any legal infirmity in the said order and, particularly, when the observations in para 8 of the order 8/07/2022 are equally applicable to the present case, as the prosecution has not bothered to move the application and it is more than 5 years that the application has been filed.
It would not therefore be in the interest of justice, without any apparent illegality being attributed in the impugned order, to cancel the bail, after a period of more than 4 years.
Hence the application is rejected.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Ashish Mhaske ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 23:43:27 :::