Jharkhand High Court
Harjit Singh @ Harjeet Singh vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 25 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
A.B.A. No. 3298 of 2021
-----
Harjit Singh @ Harjeet Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through CBI, Ranchi ......Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
Through:- Video Conferencing
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC
to Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
-----
15/Dated: 25/02/2022
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and learned
counsel for the UOI, Mr. Bajrang Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is
apprehending his arrest in connection with RC 03/2021 EOW-R (Original R.C.
Case No.05/2018), for the offence registered under Sections 120B, read with
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an
allegation, that petitioner entered in conspiracy with Bank officials, legal panel
Advocate of the Bank and others, during the period of 2010- 15 in criminal
conspiracy by producing forged and fabricated collateral securities induced
officer concerned of Punjab National Bank, Bistupur Branch and Mango
Branch, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) for sanctioning and disbursing of two over
draft against immovable property facility, two Housing Loan & two Over
Draft Loan and one Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility, dishonestly and
fraudulently caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.444.90 lacs to Punjab
National Bank and corresponding wrongful gains to themselves and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has
been made accused in three other cases, which are RC-02(S)/18-EOW-R and
RC-03(S)/18-EOB-R pertaining to Bank fraud of Punjab National Bank,
Jamshedpur and RC-04(E)/19-EOB-R, pertaining to Bank fraud of Indian
Overseas Bank, Jamshedpur, but in the present case he has already deposited
the entire loan amount to the Bank which will be apparent from the
supplementary affidavit filed on 23.07.2021 stating therein at para 5, which is
quoted hereunder :-
"5.That it is important to mention here that the petitioner has taken
different loan facilities from the Bank in the name of M/s Zaika Restaurant, M/s
Satguru Logistics, and one housing loan and till date the petitioner has already
deposited an amount of Rs.22,28,500/- (Twenty-two lakhs twenty-eight thousand
five hundred only), R.30,96,500/- (Thirty lakhs ninety-six thousand five hundred
only) and Rs.14,16,500/- (Fourteen lakhs sixteen thousand five hundred only)
respectively against those loan amount and another is the cash credit facility in
the name of M/s Satguru Mines and Minerals in which the petitioner has already
paid the interest of Rs.3,85,44,000/- (Rs. Three Crores Eighty Five Lakhs Forty
Four thousand only) till date which is apparent from the statement of Account of
all these loan accounts."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has granted Anticipatory Bail to the guarantors vide
A.B.A. No.3365 of 2021 dated 02.02.2022 whereby one of the guarantor,
Dipesh Kumar Sen has been granted bail on showing the proof of deposit of
Rs.26,00,000/- with the Punjab National Bank, Bistupur Branch and another
guarantor, Chandan Ghosh on showing the proof of deposit of Rs.37,00,000/-
with the Punjab National Bank, Bistupur Branch without prejudice to their
defence in this case and without prejudice to the right of the Punjab National
Bank for recovery of the amount entitled by it from the petitioners and the co-
accused persons through appropriate legal procedure, subject to final decision
of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the
petitioner has already deposited the amount, petitioner may be enlarged on bail
as there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit fraud. Had it
been so he could not have deposited all these amounts to the Bank.
Learned counsel for the respondent- UOI, Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to Mr.
Prashant Pallav, ASGI has submitted that petitioner is accused in three other
cases apart from the present case, which is arising out of RC Case No.5 of
2018, which has been renumbered as RC 03/2021 EOW-R with regard to the
defalcation, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail, in view of the
judgment passed in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2011 (1) SCC 694 and in the case of
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40.
Learned counsel for the respondent- CBI has submitted that reason has
been elaborately mentioned in the chargesheet dated 01.01.2021 which has
been submitted against (1) M/s Zaika Restaurant, Proprietor Harjeet Singh, (2)
M/s Satguru Logistics, Proprietor Shri Harjeet Singh (3) M/s Satguru Mines &
Minerals, Proprietor Shri Harjeet Singh, (4) Harjeet Singh, (5) Shri Sudhir
Kumar Pandey, Private Person, empanelled legal Advisor of PNB (6) Shri
Sidharth Shankar Dubey, Private Person, empanelled Legal Advisor of PNB,
(7) Dipesh Kumar Sen, Private Person, (8), Chandan Ghosh, Private Person,
guarantor (9) Nirmal Mukherjee, Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank (Now
Retired) (10) Manoj Kumar Anand, Officer Scale-1, Punjab National Bank
(Now Retired) (11) Gopal Singh Jha, Manager, Punjab National Bank (Now
Retired), (12) Kailash Kumar Agrawal, Private Person, Empanelled Legal
Advisor of PNB and (13) Shri Kulwant Singh, Private person. He has further
submitted that deposit of the defalcated amount does not exonerate the person
from a criminal charge and the Court has to consider the element of criminality
in such bank fraud.
Learned counsel for the respondent- CBI has submitted that such fraud is
only possible in connivance with bank officials and the Legal Advisors of the
Bank by placing reliance upon a document, which is apparently forged one.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that with an intent
to cheat the Bank, Harjeet Singh, petitioner applied for ODIP on 20.05.2014
for his transport business in the name of M/s Satguru Logistics for Rs.60 lacs,
which was sanctioned on 21.05.2014 and disbursed by the accused Bank
officials on different dates, though this firm was not registered in the
Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC). For the aforesaid loan accused,
Harjeet Singh had mortgaged the property vide sale deed no.2074 dated
13.05.2014 and sale deed no.2025 dated 10.05.2014 and also submitted the
bogus ITR returns for relevant assessment years. It has also been revealed
during investigation that Harjeet Singh has dishonestly and fraudulently with
an intent to cheat the Bank applied for CC loan for his iron ore business in the
name of M/s Satguru Mines and Minerals, located at Herbans Singh Building,
1st Floor, New Kalimati Road, (Near Howrah Bridge) Sakchi, Jamshedpur-
831001 on dated 12.06.2007, for which initially Rs.10 lacs was santioned on
27.09.2007 and disbursed by the Bank officials on different dates. During
investigation it has also revealed that the firm has not been registered in
Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) and for the aforesaid loan
accused, Harjeet Singh had mortgaged the property of Shri Kanhai Lal vide
Sale Deed No.498 dated 22.01.1985, which was made basis for enhancement
of CC limit from 10 lacs to Rs.25 lacs.
It has also brought on record during investigation that on the request of
Harjeet Singh the CC (H) limit was enhanced from Rs.25 lacs to Rs.70 lacs
and CC (BC) limit of 25 lacs on 31.03.2009 by using the same collateral
securities which was mortgaged earlier and also mortgaging the sale deed
No.1278 dated 26.04.1985 in the name of Ban Bihari Mahto and Uchal Bihari
Mahto both S/o Late Suchand Mahato for the sanction of aforesaid loan. Shri
Ban Bihari Mahto and Shri Uchal Bihari Mahto had never become guarantors
of the loan of Satguru Mines and Minerals and also that they had sold the
property to other person. Investigation also revealed that on request/
application dated 18.05.2010 of Harjeet Singh, the CC limit was enhanced
from Rs.95 lacs to Rs.195 lacs on 17.08.2010, which was sanctioned by using
the same collateral securities which was mortgaged earlier and also
mortgaging sale deed no.3960 dated 11.05.1988 in the name of Shri Purna
Gope, S/o Late Baidhnath Gope, for the sanction of aforesaid loan.
Investigation also revealed that Shri Purna Gope died before the Execution of
loan guarantee papers.
This shows that accused Shri Harjeet Singh in criminal conspiracy with
other accused persons had submitted false and fabricated sale deed in the bank
for mortgage and on the basis of the same, in connivance with the bank
officials and legal panel lawyers such forgery has been committed causing
loss to the bank, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail on deposit of
the amount as the ingredient of cheating and fraud is apparent on the record.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking in to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that in economic offences the Court has
to consider whether the ingredients of criminal offence is made out or not. In
economic offences Anticipatory Bail cannot be granted on deposit of the
money, which has also been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
the decisions and recently in Dilip Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 779. Since in the present case, it appears
that petitioner, Harjeet Singh has used forged and fabricated document, even
of a person who has died and even of the person who has already transferred
the land to somebody else in connivance with the Bank Manager and the legal
panel lawyers, thereby committed forgery. This Court also consider the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner and considering the fact as submitted by
the learned counsel for the CBI, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail.
Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail is hereby rejected.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
