Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Joshi @ Rk Joshi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.B.No.68/2018 in Crl. A. 44/2018
Judgment reserved on : 13.03.2018
Date of decision : 01.04. 2019
RAVINDER KUMAR JOSHI @ RK JOSHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Manish Tiwari, Mr.
Anil Kumar, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP for
CBI with Mr. Hilomon Kani,
Ms. Kriti Handa, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The applicant/appellant vide this application under Section 389
r/w Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973 seeks the suspension of the
impugned order on sentence dated 22.12.2017, vide which the
applicant was sentenced as under:-
a. RI for 03 years u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act 1988
and Fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default thereof
Sentence of 06 months.
b. RI for 03 years u/s 120 B Indian Penal Code, 1860, r/w
Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
Sections 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and fine of
Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof sentence of 01
months."
with it having been directed that the said sentence would run
concurrently.
2. The applicant was vide judgment dated 22.12.2017 of the
Special Judge, PC Act (CBI)-05, PHC, Delhi convicted for the
commission of the offences punishable under Section 120 B of the
IPC, 1860 r/w Section 420, 468 & 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2)
r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and was also convicted for
the commission of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Vide order dated 22.12.2017 of the
learned trial Court, the applicant was admitted to bail on furnishing a
bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount
for a period of 30 days to enable him to present the appeal in terms of
Section 389 (3)(1) of the Cr.PC, 1973.
3. The case registered by the CBI against the applicant herein i.e.
Ravinder Kumar Joshi @ RK Joshi was on the basis of a complaint
dated 10.02.2019 made by Shri S. Rajaram, functioning as the Zonal
Manager at the UCO Bank Branch at the Zonal Office, New Delhi
whereby it was stated that the applicant herein, the then Assistant
General Manager of the Delhi High Court Branch of the UCO Bank,
New Delhi who had since been dismissed from the bank service and
Shri Y.N. Kashyap, co-accused against whom proceedings have since
abated due to his demise, owning to their acts of criminal conspiracy
and cheating had cheated the UCO Bank to the tune of Rs.1.74 crores
and had caused it a wrongful loss in as much as on the basis of an
application dated 21.10.2014 on a plain paper and not on the
prescribed format from Shri Y.N. Kashyap, the applicant herein, the
then Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank had sanctioned a loan of
Rs.1 crore to Mr. Y.N. Kashyap under the Bank's UCO Rent Scheme
vide a sanction letter dated 24.01.2005, which had been signed by the
applicant herein and that the said loan had been sanctioned to Mr.
Y.N. Kashyap against the rent receivables of his property situated at
House No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad which he had rented out to
M/s RR Automotive Components(P) Ltd., A-59, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi and that Shri Y.N. Kashyap, one of the co-accused (since
deceased) and his son Shri Ranjan Kashyap, the third co-accused in
CC No.11/2016, were the Directors of the said company and both
resided in the property situated at House No.1361/P, Sector-14,
Faridabad which had been shown as rented out to M/s RR Automotive
Components (P) Ltd. and that a monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/- had
been shown to be paid through M/s RR Automotive Components (P)
Ltd..
4. It was also stated in the said complaint that on the basis of an
application dated 12.02.2005 also on a plain paper and not on the
prescribed format from Y.N. Kashyap, the accused (since deceased),
the applicant herein, Assistant General Manager of the UCO Bank
sanctioned a loan of Rs.32 lakhs to Shri Y.N. Kashyap under the
Bank's UCO Rent Scheme vide letter dated 25.02.2005 addressed to
Shri Y.N. Kashyap which had also been signed by the applicant and
that this subject loan of Rs.32 lakhs had been sanctioned to Shri Y.N.
Kashyap also against the rent receivables of the very same property
situated at House No.1361/P, Sector-14, Faridabad and that a monthly
rent of Rs.1,06,250/- had been shown to be paid by M/s RR
Automotive Components(P) Ltd. To Shri Y.N. Kashyap.
5. Through the complaint, it was thus stated that in both the cases,
a monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/- had been shown to be paid to M/s RR
Automotive Components (P) Ltd. and that Shri R.K. Joshi i.e. the
applicant herein in connivance with the borrowers had not asked for
the balance sheets. Inter alia it was stated through the said complaint
that the copy of lease deed from where the details of the monthly rent
payable and period of the tenancy had to be obtained, were not on the
record and that thus it appeared that the Branch Official in connivance
with the borrowers had first decided the quantum of the loan and later
on completed paper books mentioning figures of the rent required to
sanction a loan of Rs.1.32 crores and that the said loan amount had
been sanctioned by creating a third party equitable mortgage of
immovable property in the name of Shri Y.N. Kashyap and that the
subject property had thus been allotted to Shri Y.N. Kashyap by
HUDA by Conveyance Deed dated 02.06.1995 and that it was clearly
mentioned on page no.2 of the Conveyance Deed that for creation of
an equitable mortgage of the property involved, prior permission from
HUDA was required and that the applicant herein in connivance with
the borrowers had not sought any permission from the HUDA and had
created the equitable mortgage in the bank's books.
6. It was further contended through the complaint that as the
borrower had failed to repay the instalment in time qua both the loans
to the Bank, the Bank had referred the matter to the HUDA for making
its lien on the subject property and that it was found that the said
property had been twice mortgaged to other banks i.e. the Andhra
Bank and also the Standard Chartered Bank and that the deeds
deposited with the Bank were also found to be not genuine. It was thus
contended through the complaint made against him that by not asking
for the balance sheets and other financial papers to ascertain the
paying capacity of Rs.3,31,250/- p.m. as the monthly rent of M/s RR
Automotive Components (P) Ltd. and by not obtaining prior
permission/sanction knowingly and deliberately from the HUDA for
creating an equitable mortgage of the immovable property situated at
H. No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad before sanction of the subject
loans to Shri Y.N. Kashyap, that the applicant in connivance with the
borrowers had in the absence of the required loan papers and
stipulations sanctioned the loans.
7. The complaint that had been made against the co-accused Shri
Y.N. Kashyap was to the effect that he had defrauded the bank
knowingly and deliberately and deposited the fake title deeds relating
to the property situated at H.No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad and that
the petitioner having so done had defrauded the bank of a sum of
Rs.1.74 crores.
8. The UCO Bank Rent Scheme i.e. the UCO Rent Scheme which
was introduced by the UCO Bank vide Circular
No.CHO/ADV/21/2000-2001 dated 22.07.2000 was to the effect that
as per the said scheme loan could be sanctioned on the terms
stipulated therein which were to the effect:
"(a) the loan could be sanctioned to owners i.e.lessors of
houses / flats / godowns / warehouses etc. only;
(b) the owner may be an individual, a firm or acompany;
(c) the lessee, however, should be company orcorporate of
good market standing (emphasissupplied);
(d) the lessor and lessee should have invariablyentered into a
lease agreement and should betenable as per the local / state
Act;
(e) two securities were required, primarysecurity -
Assignment of Rent Receivable andCollateral Security -
equitable mortgage of theproperty for which lease agreement
was enteredbetween lessor and lessee or some other
propertythe value of which covered the loan to the extent
of100%;
(f) the repayment of the term loan was to berestricted to a
maximum of 60 months period andfollowing documents were
required to beexecuted (1) Agreement for Assignment of
RentReceivable (as per format enclosed), (2) TermLoan
Agreement (A-109), (3) Letter of Guarantee(A-107) / 107-A),
(4) Creation of EquitableMortgage, (5) Registration of
Charge on FixedAssets with Registrar of Companies
(whereverrequired), (6) Original Lease Agreement with
legalopinion and (7) Valuation Certificate/s ofproperties
from approved valuer."
9. The applicant is indicated to have remained posted as the
Assistant General Manager in the Delhi High Court UCO Branch from
May, 2004 to 06.05.2005 and was competent to sanction various types
of loan facilities to the extent of Rs.3 crores on each count to the
borrowers. Shri Y.N. Kashyap, co-accused is indicated vide the
impugned order on judgment that Shri Y.N. Kashyap on a plain paper
on 21.11.2004 addressed to the AGM, UCO Bank had requested for
sanction of a loan of Rs.1 crore and that on the basis that he had a
property situated at H.No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana
which he had given on rent to M/s RR Automotive Components (P)
Ltd.
10. As per the complaint, a loan of Rs.1 crore was sanctioned in
favour of Shri Y.N. Kashyap and the terms of the sanction letter were
incorporated in the said sanction letter dated 24.01.2005 which had
been duly signed by the applicant herein and before release of the loan
amount Shri Y.N. Kashyap executed an Agreement for Assignment of
loan on 25.01.2005 with M/s RR Automotive Components (P) Ltd.
and Shri Y.N. Kashyap signed it on behalf of the lessor of the property
and on behalf of the lessee i.e. M/s RR Automotive Components (P)
Ltd. and that an employee of the said company signed the agreement
as an authorized signatory though it should have been signed by one of
the Directors of the Company.
11. It was also stated through the complaint that the tenancy lease
agreement dated 03.11.2004 was not taken on record by Shri RK Joshi
at the time of completing the documentation and before release of the
sanction loan of Rs.1 crore, which was a primary document and on the
basis of the same, a loan of Rs.1 crore was sanctioned by Shri RK
Joshi in favour of Shri Y.N. Kashyap under the UCO Rent Scheme
and thus it was in violation of the operation of the guidelines
mentioned in the circular dated 22.07.2000 and that in the Agreement
relating to Term Loan, date of the application/proposal of borrowers
were shown as 21.10.2004 whereas in the original application, the
date21.10.2004 appeared to be altered by over-writing as 21.11.2004.
12. It was further contended on behalf of the CBI that the credibility
of the guarantor Shri Jaspal Singh Bishnoi, an employee of the
company had also not been verified by Shri RK Joshi/ the applicant
herein as required in advance covered by the guarantee and that Shri
Ranjan Kashyap had obtained the signatures of Shri Jaspal Singh
Bishnoi on the guarantee form as directed by Shri RK Joshi/ the
applicant herein on the pretext of opening of an account in the name of
the company by keeping him in the dark and not telling him the true
facts.
13. It was also observed through the judgment that as per the
complaint, for creation of an equitable mortgage, the borrower Shri
Y.N. Kashyap had given the Conveyance Deed of property situated at
H. No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad dated 02.06.1995 but before the
release of the loan, Shri RK Joshi/ the applicant herein had overlooked
the creation of a charge of the Bank on the said property in the office
of HUDA, Faridabad by not taking permission from the Estate Officer
of the HUDA and most shockingly, it was learnt vide the Conveyance
Deed in respect of property at H. No.1361-P, Sector-14, Faridabad
dated 02.06.1995 submitted by Shri YN Kashuap was forged and fake.
14. It was further submitted through the complaint to the effect:
"(xiv) Y. N. Kashyap again submitted another application
dated12.02.2005 {D-13, Page No.89 of File B-2) to R. K. Joshi
stating thathe had rented out his Property No. 89, Sector-24,
Faridabad to M/s. R.R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and
requested for further loanunder UCO Rent Scheme for Rs.32
Lakhs.
(xv) This request was processed by Sh. Ranjeet Banerjee, the
thenSenior Manager of the Branch and by R. K. Joshi, the then
AGM ofthe branch and the loan was sanctioned by accused R.
K. Joshi videsanction letter No. DHC/ADV/2004-05/135 dated
25.02.2005 (D-M,Page No. 91 of File B-2) in favour of Y. N.
Kashyap under UCO RentScheme against the security of the
same property i.e. H. No.l361-P,Sector-14, Faridabad,
Haryana, instead of against the security ofProperty No.89,
Sector-24, Faridabad, Haryana as requested/applied bythe
accused Y. N. Kashyap in his application dated 12.02.2005.
(xvi) The guarantor and authorized signatory on the
agreement forassignment of loan were same as in the previous
loan case ofRs.l Crore andR. K. Joshi committed same
irregularities which he hadcommitted in earlier loan case and
Y N. Kashyap made similar falserepresentation for obtaining
the loan as were made by him in theearlier case.
(xvii) ALoan Account No.8088 was opened in UCO Bank in
the nameof Y. N. Kashyap on 25.01.2005 and after the loan
was deposited inthis account, a sum of Rs.l Crore was debited
in the above account onthe same day and credited in the
Current Account No.2251 through debit voucher dated
25.01.2005 for Rs.l Crore duly signed by Sh.Ranjeet Banerjee,
the then Senior Manager and by R. K. Joshi (D-24,Page No.
209 of File B-2).
(xviii) This Current Account No.2251 was opened by Y. N.
Kashyapon 05.11.2004 in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch.
(xix) Similarly, vide debit voucher dated 16.03.2005, a sum of
Rs.32Lakhs was credited and thereafter debited in the loan
account of 8428 of Y. N. Kashyap and transferred /
credited in the current accountNo.2251 on 16.03.2005 {D-25,
Page No. 211 of File B-2).
(xx) This amount of Rs.1,32,00,000/- was utilized / withdrawn
infollowing manner:
Date Description Amount In Remarks
of favour
document of
24.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 9,00,000/- Cheque not
03 traceable in the
Bank. As
peraccount
statement,cash paid
to bearer.
25.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 9,00,000/- Cheque not
05 traceable in the
Bank. As
peraccount
statement,cash paid
to bearer.
27.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 6,00,000/- Self Cash received
68 byRanajn Kashyap
27.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 33,20,000/- Ranjan Theaccounttransfer
67 Kashya red andcredited in
p accountNo.070101
00030667
24.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 9,00,000/- Cheque not
03 traceable in the
Bank. As
peraccount
statement,cash paid
to bearer.of Ranjan
Kashyapmaintained
inDevelopment
CreditBank Ltd.
GreaterKailash
Branch, NewDelhi
28.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 5,00,827/- Yourse The cheque
70 lf waspassed by Sh.
RanjitBanerjee,
Sr.Manager.
Throughthis cheque
a DD for;Rs.5
Lakhs wasissued in
favour
ofChakarwarty
Steelspayableat
Faridabad.
31.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 4,30,000/- Self Cash received
76 byRanjan Kashyap
31.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 3,25,538/- Yourse Through this
71 lf cheque
a DD for
24.01.2005 Ch.No.9558 9,00,000/- Cheque not
03 traceable in the
Bank. As
peraccount
statement,cash paid
to bearer.
Rs.3,25,000/-
wasissued in favour
ofHaryana
SteelMongers (P)
Ltd.payable at
Faridabad.
01.02.2005 Ch.No.9558 30,00,000/- Ranjan The
72 Kashya amounttransferred
p and;credited in
account no.l071978
ofRanjan
Kashyapmaintained
in ABNAmro
Bank, BaraKhamba
Road,Connaught
Place,New Delhi
16.03.2005 Ch.No.9559 31,10,000/- Ranjan Amount
80 Kashya transferredin the
p currentaccount
no.2366 ofRanjan
Kashyap
24.01.2005 Ch. 9,00,000/- Cheque not
No.955803 traceablein the
Bank. As
peraccount
statement,cash paid
to
bearer.maintained
in UCOBank, Delhi
HighCourt Branch,
NewDelhi
Total 1,30,86,365/-
(xxi) Out of Rs.1,32,00,000/- sanctioned and released in
favour ofY. N. Kashyap, a sum of Rs.l,22,60,000/- was
mis-utilized by RanjanKashyap for personal gain and
not for the purpose under UCO RentScheme.
(xxii) Ranjan Kashyap, in criminal conspiracy with R.
K. Joshi,opened Current Account No.2366 on
07.01.2005 with an initial depositof Rs.10,000/- (D-37,
Page No. 245 of File B-2). However, on the sameday,
aclean overdraft facility amounting to Rs.32,49,954/-
was grantedby R. K. Joshi. From this account, Ranjan
Kashyap got issued a PayOrder for Rs.32,57,509/- in
favour of Standard Chartered Bank LoanAccount
No.42314968 on 17.01.2005 itself. This overdraft
amount waslater on adjusted by way of transfer of
Rs.31,10,000/- from the CurrentAccount No.2251 of Y.
N. Kashyap through cheque no.955890 dated16.3.2005
for Rs.31,10,000/- which was issued in the name of
RanjanKashyap. For availing this overdraft facility, no
documents wereobtained by R. K. Joshi from Ranjan
Kashyap.
(xxiii) The Current Account No.2251 became NPA
account on30.09.2005.
(xxiv) Contrary to Clause No. 5 of Agreement for
Assignment of Rent(D-9, Page No.73 of File B-2), the
rent was not deposited regularly inthe Loan Account
No.8088 and Loan Account No.8428. (It is pertinentto
mention here that in the Agreement for Assignment of
Rent (D-23,Page No.201 of File B-2) for loan of Rs.32
Lakhs in the Clause No. 5,the column of monthly rent is
left blank).
(xxv) Subsequently, a sum of Rs.28,80,000/- was repaid
in LoanAccount No.8088 and Rs.7,50,000/- in Loan
Account No. 8428 i.e. atotal amount of Rs.38,64,200/-.
(xxvi)Not only the title deed of Property No.l361-P,
Sector-14,Faridabad was forged but this property was
already mortgaged withAndhra Bank on 27.11.2001 for
securing sanction of various creditfacilities to the tune
of Rs.415 Lakhs sanctioned on 09.11.2001 infavour of
M/s. R. R. Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. through
itsdirectors Y. N. Kashyap, Ranjan Kashyap, Ms. Reema
Kashyap andMs. Asha Kashyap.
(xxvii) For availing the loan facility under UCO Rent
Scheme, RanjanKashyap managed to complete the
Guarantor's Form and Agreementfor Assignment of
Rent from his employees under threat and obtainedtheir
signatures on the relevant documents from Sh. K. K.
Makhija andSh. Jaspal Singh Bishnoi."
15. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.12.2017
which has been assailed in Crl.A.44/2018 held that the acts of criminal
conspiracy and criminal misconduct had been proved against the
applicant/petitioner by his having sanctioned the loans in the absence
of required papers as per the stipulations of the UCO Rent Scheme,
and by his having not even asked for the balance-sheets/ other
financial papers to ascertain the paying capacity of an amount of
monthly rent of Rs.3,31,250/- to M/s RR Automotive Components (P)
Ltd., the alleged lessee, coupled with the factum that the petitioner
herein had not even conducted the spot verification in as much as the
spot verification report was not even dated nor signed by the petitioner
and that the petitioner had also not even perused the valuation and
inspection report dated 20.11.2001 prepared by the Bank itself which
indicated that in reply to a query at internal page no.3 at serial no.17
which read to the effect that whether occupied by the owner/tenant? If
occupied by tenant since how long? Rent received per month, the
answer was 'Owner Occupied' and that in the instant case, the owner
was Shri Y.N. Kashyap and thus the report belied the submission of
the borrower and that the valuation report did not indicate that any rent
was being received and that had the petitioner herein not deliberately
overlooked the financial position of M/s RR Automotive Components
(P) Ltd., not a single penny would have been sanctioned in favour of
the accused no.2 Shri Y.N. Kashyap (since deceased) in view of the
so-called rent receivables from M/s RR Automotive Components (P)
Ltd.
16. The learned trial Court also observed to the effect that the
unexpired lease period was mentioned to be 60 months and the lease
being for more than one year was compulsorily required to be
registered and despite several opportunities, the petitioner herein had
not produced any document to show whether the lease deed had been
registered.
17. As per the judgment of the learned trial Court, the requisite
permission from HUDA for creation of a lease other than a monthly
lease had also not been taken by the accused Shri Y.N. Kashyap and
even this fact had been overlooked by the petitioner herein. As per the
UCO Rent Scheme for Financing Rent Receivables at serial no.14 (f),
documentation thereof, the 'original lease agreement with the legal
opinion' is one of the requirements for sanction of the loan and no
such legal opinion of the Panel Advocate on the lease agreement, as
per requirement of the scheme had been taken. Furthermore, the
petitioner did not take any prior permission of HUDA for creation of
an equitable mortgage of the property situated at H.No.1361-P, Sector
-14, Faridabad, Haryana before sanction and disbursing two loans
totalling to Rs.1.32 crores in favour of the accused no.2 Shri Y.N.
Kashyap which was requisite in as much as the first and paramount
charge over the said property was for the unpaid portion of the sale
price including additional price and the transferee/the accused Shri
Y.N. Kashyap had no right to transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage
or otherwise, the land or any right, title/ interest without the previous
permission in writing of the Estate Officer except by way of lease on a
monthly basis.
18. The petitioner seeks to contend that there is no evidence that the
applicant had any previous knowledge of the forged nature of the title
deeds of the questioned property and that he had conducted the pre-
sanction inspection of the mortgaged property as per Ex.PW7/C which
bore signature of the petitioner herein to indicate that spot verification
had been done by him on which he found that verification had been
done satisfactorily. The petitioner further submitted that the opinion
and report of the Panel Advocate Ex.PW-10 showed that the property
was fit for mortgage and was free from all encumbrances.
19. The petitioner also contended that no loss to the tune of Rs.1.74
crores as alleged in the complaint Ex.PW1/A had taken place. Inter
alia the petitioner submitted that there was no loss that had been
caused to the UCO Bank in as much as they had accepted the proposal
of Rs.68 lakhs which was the compromise amount and that there were
no dues left of the bank on the borrower. The petitioner further
submitted that erroneous presumptions had been drawn by the learned
trial Court. Inter alia the appellant submitted through his written
submissions dated 05.02.2018 that he was a senior citizen aged 68
years suffering from chronic bronchial asthma disease apart from
other ailments and had an aged wife aged 64 years who was ailing and
that he was also required to look after his ailing and old mother-in-law
aged 85 years and that there had been no adverse circumstances
against the appellant during the entire period of trial and that he has
undergone the trial of a period of 8 years and had never misused the
liberty of grant of bail and that the appellant is not a previous convict.
20. Reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on the verdicts
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and
Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1999 SC 1859, Angana and Anr. V.
State of Rajasthan AIR 2009 SC 1669, Sudhir Kumar jain V. State
of Delhi 2008 (1) JCC 564, Suresh Kumar V. State (2001) 10 SCC
338, on the verdict of this Court in Suresh Joshi V. CBI in
CRL.A.1043/2017, Rai Sri AchhyutanandaSrichandan V. CBI in
CRL.A.1042/2017, Kamal Naresh Sharma v. CBI in
CRL.A.1099/2017, Ranjan Kashyap Vs. CBI in CRL.A.1018/2017,
S.V. Chauhan V. CBI in CRL.A.999/2017, Lajpat Chandolia Vs.
CBI in CRL.A.1017/2017 to contend that the sentence imposed on the
appellant/petitioner being not beyond three years, and there being no
previous convictions against him, he be released on bail.
21. The CBI on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer
submitting to the effect that in view of the proved allegations against
the applicant, there was no ground of suspension of sentence at all.
Reliance was placed on behalf of the CBI on the verdict of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar
WamanraoSmarth MANU/SC/7403/2008, Kishori Lal Vs. Rupa and
Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1481, Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI
MANU/DE/3311/2016, Sukhbir Singh Vs. State
MANU/DE/1330/2011, Braham Pal Vs. State NCT of Delhi
MANU/DE/0935/2011, Prithivi Raj Arora @ Netaji Vs. CBI
MANU/DE/8815/2007 to contend that the presumption of innocence
did not exist in favour of the petitioner anywhere in view of his
conviction and that the mere pendency of an appeal does not suffice to
grant the prayer of the applicant/petitioner for granting bail.
22. Undoubtedly, the mere pendency of an appeal is no ground to
suspend the sentence. However, the facts and circumstances of the
instant case indicate that a settlement had been arrived at between the
UCO Bank and Shri Y.N. Kashyap, the borrower herein and that a
sum of Rs.68 lakhs had been paid towards full and final settlement of
all dues to the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and taking into
account the factum that there are no previous adverse antecedents
against the applicant and that he has been on bail during the course of
the trial and the factum that he had been sentenced for a period of
three years, in terms of Section 389(3) of the Cr.PC, 1973, it is
considered appropriate to release the applicant on bail during the
pendency of the appeal Crl.A. 44/2018 on a submission of a bail bond
for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with directions
that he shall not leave the country without permission of the learned
trial Court during the pendency of the appeal.
23. The application Crl. M.B.68/2018 is disposed of accordingly
and Crl.A.44/2018 be thus now placed before the concerned Hon'ble
Roster Bench on the date 05.04.2019.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
ST
APRIL 1 , 2019
vm
