Allahabad High Court
Shefali Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13059 of 2022
Applicant :- Shefali Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in FIR No. RC 219-2019 E 0004, P.S. CBI, EO, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The accused-applicant was Chief Manager of the Union Bank of India (UBI), Mid-corporate Branch, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. On recommendation of the accused-applicant, an executive summary prepared by her on the basis of inspection done by her to the properties, which were mortgaged as bank security and Rs. 20 Crores CC Limit was sanctioned to M/s H.K. Enterprises. The said amount was later on channelized to various companies/firms and the account became 'NPA' and as a result thereof, bank has suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 22 Crores.
4. The C.B.I. in its investigation, in respect of the role of the accused-applicant alongwith other co-accused, has found as under:-
"M/s H.K. Enterprises through its partners Shri Harmesh Kumar(A-1) and Ravindra Ahlawat (A-2) submitted the loan application for CC Limit of Rs. 20 crores on 01.10.2017. The loan application was processed by Smt. Shefali Sharma(A-10), Chief Manager-cum-Branch Head along with Shri Ankit Tomar, Manager, both of Union Bank of India (UBI), Mid-Corporate Branch, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. However, all the due diligences were conducted by Smt. Shefali Sharma alone on 10.10.2017 because as per the bank's guidelines, it was the duty of the branch head to lead the due diligence for the loan amount above Rs. 1 crore. The stock inspection, before sanction of loan, was conducted by Smt. Shefali Sharma alone on 10.10.2017. The process note (Executive Summary) dated 12.10.2017 recommending for the sanction of the proposal CC limit of Rs. 20 crores was forwarded to UBI, Regional Office. Thereafter, on 24.10.2017, the instant CC limited of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by the Regional Level Credit Committee (RLCC-I) headed by Sh. A M Kulshrestha (A-9), the then DGM, UBI, R.O. Meerut who in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, abused his official position for sanctioning of this loan and the same was sanctioned in flagrant violation of various bank's circulars.
Subsequently, after completing the documentations, the CC (Cash Credit) loan account No. 690905040000129 was opened on 29.10.2017. Thereafter, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the loan was disbursed by Smt. Shefali Sharma (A-10), Chief Manager & Branch Head by abusing her official position in flagrant violations of the bank's circulars."
5. This Court vide detailed judgment and order dated 9th January, 2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4367 of 2022 (Rajneesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another) and three other connected anticipatory bail applications, has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of the other co-accused.
6. Considering the fact that it was the accused-applicant, who recommended the loan amount of Rs. 20 Crores to M/s H.K. Enterprises and notice of the executive summary prepared by her, the loan was sanctioned, this Court finds that this is not a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail, whose action has caused loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 22 Crores in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, whose anticipatory bail applications have been rejected on merit.
7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders within a period of seven days from today before the trial Court and applies for regular bail, her bail application shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law.
.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Shafique
