Rajesh Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 711 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11481 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Bs & Fc New Delhi
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

According to prosecution version the accused was posted as Chief Manager/ Branch Head, Union Bank of India, Ghaziabad , main branch from 8.7.2011 to 25.5.2012 and during this period he abused his official position by providing undue accommodation to M/s RAPL and in conspiracy with Directors of RAPL and other accused persons disbursed bank funds on the basis of false documents whereby he caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the Directors of M/s. RAPL. Although M/s RAPL did not apply for any regular facility despite that the accused started discounting bills of M/s. RAPL worth Crores of Rupees on monthly basis beyond his delegated financial powers. The applicant used to submit ratification notes to RO, Meerut for ratification of their action of discounting of bills under LC during a month over and above sanctioned limits in M/s Rajat Steels group accounts after expiry of the respective months. In conspiracy with other accused persons, he deliberately and with malafide intention did not ensure the genuineness of Amendment letters to LCs and Acceptance Letters from the LC issuing bank, PNB although vide these amendment issued within few days of issuance of LCs, LC value was increased multiple times. He dishonestly discounted the bills at the branch which were not sent to LC issuing bank to ensure their acceptance and in order to ascertain their genuineness. The purported acceptance letters of PNB were received through the representatives of the party which subsequently were found to be fake. As such original forged bills discounted during his tenure were destroyed. The signatures of the Authorised Signatories on Amendment letters and Acceptance letters were never verified by him. Thus he has caused great financial loss to the bank which involved loss of public money for personal gains.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against him are of certain procedural/ operational lapses. In the case of branch officials, who were directly dealing with bills department and senior officials of regional office Meerut including regional head, who permitted discounting of bills, have been recommended for departmental action for certain procedural lapses, but only applicant has been charge sheeted. It if further argued that day to day routine operations are performed by team of officers who work in tandem. One such officer handling bills in the department for the last one and half year (approx.) before applicant's joining the branch on 8.7.2011, was required to scrutinize the bills, verify the letters of credit/ amendments, for sending the documents to LC opening bank and verification of acceptance letter as well as handling the realized bills, proceeds of bills received from LC opening bank as per the norm of bill discounting policy. The bills officer/ Credit Manager never informed him about any discrepancy in the bills or LC amendments being forged or fabricated. Since no alarm was raised by them hence he did not have any suspicion about them. The auditor monitoring day to day operations of the branch never pointed out any irregularities in this regard. Allegations raised against him are baseless. In the departmental enquiry of bank it was established that the allegations in the bill discounting to M/s RAPL without regular bill discounting facilities was not correct against the applicant, as the bills were discounted under the instructions of Regional Office, Meerut. The bills cannot be discounted in the system without modifying the limit in ACLHM menu proportionate to the bill amount discounted subsequently. Accordingly, limit has been entered in ACLHM menu in the light of permission for discounting of bills from RO Meerut. In vigilance report prepared by Chairman and Managing Director of Union Bank of India there was no apparent connivance found of the bank officials with the party and lapses which surfaced were procedural in nature. Further, it is argued that the applicant was also made accused in Special Case No.03 of 2015, under section 120-B read with section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 I.P.C. substantive offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(D) Prevention of Corruption Act regarding which he had moved an application for bail being application no.5011 of 2016 in which he was detained in jail since 28.9.2014 and was bailed out on 4.10.2016 only and after his release in the said case he has again being sent behind bars in the present case. He further argued that the co-accused Anil Puri has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7607 of 2016 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 10.02.2017.

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the applicant was a Chief Managar of the bank in question, hence his involvement in the present case cannot be ruled out although he could not dispute the fact that other co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Rajesh Gupta involved in Special Case No.01 RC No. BD 1/2015/E/0005, under sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, substantive offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. C.B.I.,BS & FC, New Delhi, released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. three lakhs with two sureties of (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court concerned & shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by him from this Court till the conclusion of the trial.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 21.5.2018

shiv