Ashish Parashar vs Central Bureau Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2993 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 43 A.F.R.

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34197 of 2016

Applicant :- Ashish Parashar

Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation/A.C.B, Ghaziabad

Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

Perused the record.

This bail application has been preferred by Mr. Ashish Parashar, the accused-applicant in relation to Case Crime No. RC1202012A0005 of 2012, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, P.S.- C.B.I. A.C.B., Ghaziabad.

The brief facts of the prosecution version are that the C.B.I. registered an F.I.R. against the officials of Union Bank of India, Main Branch, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad along with Sri Ramesh Chand Goel, proprietor of M/s. Sushila Steel, 220 Hapur Road, Ghaziabad, Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura, Managing Director M/s. International Electron Device Ltc.(I.E.D.L.), M/s. Sushila Steel, Ghaziabad, M/s International Electron Device Ltd. (I.E.D.L.) Ghaziabad, R/o-2/237, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, and some unknown persons with the allegations that during the period from 11.1.2010 to 6.11.2010, 7.11.2010 to 5.7.2011 and 8.7.2011 to 26.5.2012 the bank officials entered into conspiracy with the directors of the said companies and with some unknown persons with intent to commit the offences of conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct during their respective tenure and in pursuance thereof permitted discount/payment of Rs. 265 crores against bogus/forged L.Cs./Amendments to L.Cs., out of which Rs. 58.93 crores are still outstanding and thereby caused pecuniary loss to Union Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 58.93 crores and corresponding illegal gain to themselves. In the said first information report the allegations were made to the effect that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons, Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura initially got issued the Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) of his account maintained at Punjab National Bank, Navyug Market Branch, Ghaziabad in favour of the account of M/s Sushila Steel maintained at Union Bank of India, Main Branch, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad for transactions between the said two companies, wherein M/s I.E.D.L. was buyer and M/s Sushila Steel was seller. It is further alleged in the first information report that the bank officials of Union Bank of India namely Sri R.S. Thakur and Sri M.M. R. Chhabra and Sri Rajesh Gupta, dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing their official positions permitted the payments of total worth Rs. 44.12 crores approx, Rs. 79.42 crores approx and Rs. 141 crores approx in different installments to M/s Sushila Steel against bogus L.Cs./Amendments to L.Cs. without receiving corresponding advice from the issuing bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Navyug Market Branch, Ghaziabad and avoided to obtain mandatory credit appraisals of the buyer bank. Further allegations in the first information report are that with the above stated modus operandi, Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura, Managing Director of M/s I.E.D.L. in criminal conspiracy of Sri Ramesh Chand Goel, Proprietor of M/s Sushila Steel dishonestly and fraudulently facilitated the payment of about Rs. 206 crores though his account maintained at Punjab National Bank, Navyug Market Branch, Ghaziabad in favour of account of M/s Sushila Steel maintained at Union Bank of India, Main Branch, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad to recoup the already drawn payments by M/s Sushila Steel against bogus L.Cs. and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura has given corporate guarantee to Union Bank of India for unpaid bills of M/s Sushila Steel which were in fact against the forged Amendments to L.Cs. and out of said fraudulently drawn amounts, a sum of Rs. 58.93 crores is still outstanding.

With the said allegations the C.B.I., A.C.B. Ghaziabad conducted investigation and after completion thereof submitted charge sheet against total 15 accused persons namely Shri Ram Singh Thakur (A-1), Shri Manmohan Rai Chhabra (A-2), Shri Rajesh Gupta (A-3), Shri Ramesh Chand Goel (A-4), Shri Sudhir Kumar Kaura (A-5), M/s International Electron Devices Limited through its Managing Director's Shri Sudhir Kumar Kaura (A-6), Shri Prabhunath Singh (A-7), Smt. Sushma Chandra (A-8), Shri Rajat Goel (A-9), Shri Lokesh Kumar Garg (A-10), Shri Kulbhushan Singh Nim (A-11), Shri Ashok Kumar Verma (A-12), Shri Anil Puri (A-13), Shri Ashish Parashar (A-14), Shri Anil Kumar (A-15) for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 I.P.C. and substantive offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, P.S.- C.B.I. A.C.B., Ghaziabad.

Submission on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant, at the relevant point of time, was working as Assistant Accountant in Account Department of M/s I.E.D.L. and was appointed on 1.4.2011 on probation for a period of one year and was working under the control and direction of Managing Director, Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura and Manager Sri Anil Puri in the office of M/s International Electron Device Ltd. (I.E.D.L.). Submission is that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name figured during the course of investigation with the allegations that the applicant had facilitated the filing of acceptance form on 20.8.2011 and also an Amendment Form bearing Amendment No. 4 on 17.12.2011 in his writing. Further submission is that as the applicant was working under the control and direction of Manging Director and Manager of M/s International Electron Device Ltd., even if the allegation that the applicant had written the body writing of the forged amendments and acceptance of bills under the forged amendments is presumed to be true for the sake of arguments, even then the said documents are nothing but waste papers unless they are signed by the bank's authorized signatory i.e. the account holder, and as such the applicant was doing his work in good faith believing himself to be bound by law to do the same. The case of the applicant falls within the provisions of General Exception under Section 76 of I.P.C. Further submission is that there is no direct allegation or material against the applicant in respect of his conspiracy with the other co-accused persons and the offences, if any, has been committed by the respective two companies through their Managing Director or Proprietors in criminal conspiracy with the Bank Officials. Submission is that the co-accused Lokesh Kumar Garg and Rajat Goel have been granted bail by the court below vide orders dated 3.11.2015 and 15.3.2016 respectively (annexture no. 5 to the bail application) and the other co-accused namely Ram Singh Thakur, Prabhu Nath Singh, Rajesh Gupta and Ashok Kumar Verma have been granted bail by another Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1847 of 2017 dated 9.9.2016, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5012 of 2016 dated 21.9.2016, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5011 of 2016 dated 4.10.2016 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21348 of 2017 dated 14.6.2017 respectively. Further submission is that the applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedents and he is in judicial custody since 22.1.2016 and in view of grant of bail to the above named co-accused persons, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in criminal case in question on grounds of parity.

Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the accused-applicant and has submitted that the entire episode of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and corruption has resulted into a huge scam of bungling of total Rs. 265 crores out of which Rs. 57,70,29,000/- are still outstanding in the account of M/s Sushila Steel causing such a huge loss of public money to the Union Bank of India. Not only this, the charge sheet of C.B.I. reveals that the loss to the Service Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 19,94,253/- as Service Tax and a loss to Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,72,67,940 as bank charges has also been caused due to fraudulent and dishonest intentions of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has elaborated the entire episode of scam by submitting that in fact the discounting of Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) requires proof of transactions of goods in the form of sell-purchase as well as the proof of transporation of such transaction of goods and according to paragraph-11 of the charge sheet, it got revealed during the course of investigation that in respect of some of the transactions, invoices and bilties of the bills drawn under the forged amendments were actually prior to the date of credit i.e. before the date of issue of amendments and in fact, no goods were transported on the bilties. Likewise according to praragraph-15 of the charge sheet, it got revealed during the course of investigation that some of the bills were accompanied by lorry receipts of non-existing transport firms. Further submission is that each accused of the criminal case in question was performing his role according to the requirements of a large dishonest scheme or plan according to his own position and status in the entire chain of activities which eventually resulted in large scam. Further submission is that during the course of investigation the role of the accused-applicant emerged as one of the key players having committed forgery in the documents and the contents of paragraph no. 27 and 28 of the charge sheet reveal that the accused-applicant Ashish Parashar and two other employees namely Sri Anil Puri and Sri Anil Kumar working for M/s I.E.D.L. had actually written the body writing of forged amendments and acceptance of bills drawn on forged amendments and the said forged amendments were used as a genuine by Sri Ramesh Chand Goel, Sri Rajat Goel and Sri Sudhir Kumar Kaura and other accused persons discounting bills in Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Ghaziabad. Further submission is that the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory has confirmed the writing of accused applicant on the forged Amendment No. 4 dated 17.12.2011 for Rs. 2,61,00,000/- of L.Cs. No. 0139/11 dated 29.11.2011 and for Rs. 90.00 lacs and forged acceptance of documents of Punjab National Bank, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, dated 20.8.2011 for Rs. 54,07,917/-, Rs. 54,02,883/-, Rs. 54,25,305/-, Rs. 54,24,548/- and Rs. 35,38,621/- under LC No. 97/11, dated 25.7.2011 for Rs. 1099 lacs (Amended). The said report of C.F.S.L. further confirms the writing of Mr. Kulbhushan Singh Nim, Deputy Manager of Punjab National Bank on the said body writings which clearly shows that the accused applicant had entered into criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused persons and was hands and gloves with him. It has also been emphasized that the applicant had tried his level best to avoid the initial process of law and had surrendered before the trial court only when the trial court was compelled to issue processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and as such, in addition to his involvement in the criminal case in question on the basis of clear and cogent materials, the conduct of the accused-applicant also disentitles him to be released on bail. It has also been submitted that a bare perusal of the bail orders of co-accused being relied upon by the applicant's side goes to show that the respective case of every co-accused who were granted bail stands on different footing. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for C.B.I. that the bail order of co-accused Lokesh Kumar Garg reveals that the court below has given specific finding in para-10 that the role of co-accused Lokesh Kumar Garg stands on different footing from the role and circumstances of other co-accused. Likewise the bail granting order of co-accused Rajat Goel mentions that the money was transferred into the account of his father Sri Ramesh Chand Goel, who is the prime accused of crime in question and not in the account of co-accused Rajat Goel and he was not the proprietor of M/s Sushila Steel and had signed on bill of exchange only on three days under the instructions of his father Sri Ramesh Chand Goel and the court below has specifically observed that co-accused Rajat Goel performed overt act only on three days. Likewise the bail granting order of co-accused Ram Singh Thakur mentions the fact that he being Branch Manager of Union Bank of India was subjected to the departmental inquiry and was exonerated in the same. Likewise the bail granting order of co-accused Prabhu Nath Singh mentions the fact that co-accused Prabhu Nath Singh has 45% permanent disability in his legs. Similarly, in the bail granting order of co-accused Rajesh Gupta the relevant fact which has surfaced is that co-accused Rajesh Gupta has a long unblemished service record being Branch Manager of Union Bank of India since joining of his service in early 90s. Similarly, the bail granting order of co-accused Ashok Kumar Verma also reflects that he was working as Manager at Punjab National Bank and the responsibility of sanctioning the same is totally of Union Bank of India. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the bail orders appear to have been passed by the court concerned in the light of the respective factual position of role and involvement of aforesaid co-accused and so far as the present applicant is concernd, his role and involvement in the crime in question is entirely different from those co-accused persons, who have been granted bail. Lastly, it has been submitted that rule of parity for grant of bail is not absolute and any such claim of parity is liable to be seen in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in comparision to other cases of granting bail as well as in the light of plethora of materials available in the case diary in the light of which the accused-applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and his bail application is liable to be rejected.

In the light of rival submissions and the record placed before this Court, it is apparent that the case at hand relates to a huge and hideous scam of total Rs. 265 crores and as a consequential resultant effect thereof an amount of Rs. 57.27 crores is still outstanding, not to speak about the loss to the Service Tax Department to a tune of Rs. 19,94,253/- as service tax and the loss to Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,72,67,940/- as bank charges. The entire story as has surfaced from the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. revolves around the series of forgeries having been committed in relation to Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) issued by the Punjab National Bank, Navyug Market Branch , Ghaziabad and the charge-sheet reveals that all 15 accused persons had dishonestly handled and performed one or the other function during the process of discounting of Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) with a view to pilfer away the aforesaid huge amount of money bit by bit in the garb of sham transactions of sale-purchase. The entire process of pilferring the aforesaid huge amount includes not only the acts of forgery in respect of amendment in L.Cs. but also includes forgeries in respect of invoices generated to show sales-purchases of goods and the bilties of transportation of such goods, which in fact were fake transactions and the lorry receipts of non-existing transport firms were used. This Court finds that the contents of charge-sheet of C.B.I. as well as the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I. clearly recites that the accused-applicant Ashish Parashar and two other employees had written the body-writing of forged amendments and acceptance of bills drawn on forged amendments and the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratories (C.F.S.L.) has confirmed the writing of the accused -applicant on some of the forged amendments of Letter of Credits (L.Cs.). The record further demonstrates that such forged amendments of Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) were used as genuine by the M.D. and proprietor of the above said two companies in the name of sale-purchase of goods which was nothing but a fictitious ruse. The record further reveals that the writing of one Deputy Manager of Punjab National Bank has also been confirmed by Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.S.F.L.) on those documents in which the hand-writing of accused-applicant finds place, which demonstrates the commission of criminal conspiracy hatched by the applicant and the other co-accused persons. Therefore, in view of such incriminating cogent materials showing commission of offences by the accused-applicant in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, the prima facie involvement of accused-applicant in the entire episode of such a huge scam appears to be well founded and the submission made on behalf of the applicant in respect of general exception under Section 76 of I.P.C. is utterly misconceived. A person, who claims himself to be duly qualified and working as Assistant Accountant, requires to know that the Letter of Credits (L.Cs.) issued by the bank cannot be amended or changed by him and in case, such person makes changes or amendments in Letter of Credit (L.Cs.) issued by the bank, he cannot take plea that he was doing such an act in good faith beliving himself to be bound by the law to do the same just becuase he was working under the control and directions of his superiors. The roles assigned to the accused-applicant as well as some of the other co-accused persons who have yet not been granted bail, are entirely different from the roles assigned to those co-accused who have been granted bail and who are namely, Lokesh Kumar Garg, Rajat Goel, Ram Singh Thakur, Prabhu Nath Singh, Rajesh Gupta and Ashok Kumar Verma. Their bail orders rest upon considerations which are not applicable to the accused-applicant and hence, the accused-applicant cannot claim any benefit out of those bail orders granted by other Benches of this Court. This Court has no hesitation to observe that the offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and corruption are generally committed after thoughtful considerations in a planned manner and in a case like the present one, the gravity and seriousness of offence deepens due to the bungling of such a staggeringly huge amount of public money which is to the tune of Rs. 265 crores out of which Rs. 57.27 crores are still outstanding, apart from the other amounts of service tax and bank charges as have already been narrated hereinbefore.

With regard to the submissions made on the point of parity of the applicant with some other co-accused who have been granted bail, this Court is feeling constrained to observe that though in order to keep the public faith in judicial institution intact we always make an attempt to attain uniformity of opinion as an institution while dealing with matters of similar kind but it is possible only when the matters are actually identical and not otherwise. The circumstances relating to different accused in the same case may often differ, the nature of evidence against each of them may also be at variance. There may be even other individualy mitigating circumstances which may distinguish one accused from another and put their cases on different footing. In such situations, the undefined rule of parity cannot be over stretched disproportionately to bring in its fold all the accused into one bracket. If we overdo this exercise, it may sometimes be tentamount to an attempt of putting a square peg in a round whole. Moreover the rule of parity is neither absolute nor can override or outweigh every other judicial consideration. Sometimes there may be mattters where a given accused person whose case may ostensibly appear to be on similar footing, may not be attended with the same fate. The Courts act in the light of their own judicious conscience. Sometimes the facts are so grave and are of such nature that the very idea of granting bail revolts against the judicial conscience of the Presiding Judge. In such a situation, the courts prefer not to cling to the heckneyed rule of parity but to act in the light of their own judicial conscience. In such cases the Courts feel that acting otherwise shall result in miscarriage of justice. In the case at hand this Court is of the view that the defence plea raised by the accused-applicant is not only not tenable but his case is also on a different footing on facts than the other co-accused who have been granted the indulgence of bail by another Benches. Apart from this, the conclusive nature of incriminating evidence in the form of Forensic expert's opinion tendering proof of hand-writing of the applicant on the forged papers fixes his guilt. He was a key player and a facilitating clog in the wheel of an orchastrated conspiracy which resulted in the bungling of multiple crores and his complicity in the crime has been prima facie proved as much as such things are capable of being proved. There does not appear any doubt about it. Money in the banks is actually the hard earn public saving put at the disposal of authorities who introduce several schemes and policies providing innumerable facilities to entrepreneurs in order to promote business and growth of national economy. It is indeed a pity to see that some unscrupulous tricksters driven by their rapacious greed tend to exploit the economic benevolence of such policies which put entire bank resources at the disposal of such business entrepreneurs. It is nothing less than an irony to see that the accused involved in the present case, instead of making good use of bank facilities for promoting business, have chosen to drain away colossal amounts running in multiple crores in such a dishonest fraudulent manner to their own wrongful gains. The economic bungling reflected in this matter is a sabotage against the banking institution as such which is an integral part of national economy. Such audacious defalcations can simply not be countenance with. The very idea of granting bail to the accused involved in this scam revolts against the judicial conscience of this Court and in the opinion of this Court granting bail to the applicant would be an act of misplaced mercy which he does not deserve.

Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 4.8.2017

Naresh