Jitendra Prajapati vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2630 MP

       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        M.Cr.C. No.23666/2021
              (Jitendra Prajapati Vs. State of M.P.)
                                                                         1

Jabalpur, Dated : 23 / 06/ 2021
       Heard through video conferencing.
       Shri Siddharth Radhe Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
       Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the
respondent / CBI.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant Jitendra Prajapati under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. RC0082018A0004 registered at Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

As per prosecution case, co-accused Daljit Singh, the then Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Bhopal and applicant Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, the then Manager Credit, Punjab National Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Bhopal abused their official position and entered into a criminal conspiracy with applicant Jitendra Prajapati, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises and co-accused Narendra Prajapati Guarantor and in pursuance thereof sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.150 lakh on 01.12.2011 in favour of applicant Jitendra Prajapati, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises which was further enhanced to Rs.300 lakh on 08.06.2020 while applicant Jitendra Prajapati, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises was not eligible for the loan as per the available documents in the loan file relating to the financial details, primary security and collateral security, and in view of the relevant bank circulars. It is further alleged that co-accused Suresh Chandra Aggarwal in conspiracy with the other accused persons without analyzing the financial documents correctly and in violation of the bank norms by abusing his official position, recommend the case of the applicant Jitendra Prajapati. The follow-up procedures were also not THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23666/2021 (Jitendra Prajapati Vs. State of M.P.)

followed with regard to the loan account and the borrower was allowed to avail the drawing power despite the fact that the stock statements are highly disproportionate to the transactions in the loan account. It is further alleged that co-accused Suresh Chandra Aggarwal submitted false inspection details, without making physical verification of the stock. The place of stock was never in possession of the applicant (borrower) and the applicant was not having permission from the Mines Department for storage of coal. The insurance policies prior to 2014-15 are not available in the loan file. Co-accused Suresh Chandra Agrawal did not verify the stock of loan i.e., primary security but recommended for sanctioning and enhancement of the loan. The specific allegation against the applicant is that applicant in connivance with other bank officials on the basis of forged documents obtained a loan of Rs. 4 Crore and embezzled that amount. Applicant took that loan for the business of coal while he invested that amount in some other purpose. Thus, he committed fraud with the bank.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the said offence was registered in the year 2018 and the applicant regularly appeared before the investigation officer during the long tenure of investigation. The charge sheet has also been filed, so the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhardesh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujraj and Anr. reported in ( 2016) 1 SCC 152.

Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant on the basis of forged documents applicant took a loan of Rs. 4 Cores from the bank and embezzled that amount and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23666/2021 (Jitendra Prajapati Vs. State of M.P.)

committed fraud with the bank. So, the applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

The non-arrest of the applicant during investigation and failure of the Investigating Officer to produce him in custody while filing the charge sheet cannot be the sole determinant for deciding whether to grant or refuse bail to the applicant. If an accused was not arrested during the investigation, he cannot claim bail as a matter of right and the bail application has to be dealt with on settled legal principles wherein non- arrest during the investigation may be treated as one of the favouring factors.

If the non-arrest of the applicant during investigation and failure of the Investigating Officer to produce him in custody while filing the charge-sheet is to be taken as an absolute rule for granting anticipatory bail, it makes the provisions of section 438 of Cr.P.C. redundant. If the Investigating Officer decides to show favour to an accused of a non- bailable offence, he would neither arrest the accused during investigation nor produce him in custody as envisaged under Section 170 Cr.P.C. In such a situation, whether the court would be helpless to exercise its judicial discretion conferred upon him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and subjugate his judicial powers to the whims and fancies of the Investigating Officer? It is not so. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and other similar considerations.

The facts of the case Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth ( supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicant do not match with the present case. In that case, learned trial court initially framed charge against the applicant under section 506 IPC in the year 2001 thereafter in the year THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23666/2021 (Jitendra Prajapati Vs. State of M.P.)

2010 prosecutrix filed an application for adding charge of rape under Section 376 of IPC. So, in these circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. But in the present case from the beginning offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered against the applicant. So that judgment do not assist the applicant.

From the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, it is clear that the economic offences are considered grave offences as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep-rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds are to be viewed seriously. The economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such types of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of the public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on society are always important considerations in such a case.

It is alleged that the applicant in connivance with bank officials on the basis of forged documents obtained a loan of Rs. 4 Crore from the bank and embezzled that amount. Applicant took that loan for the business of coal while he invested that amount in some other purpose. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the enormity of fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Hence, the application is rejected.

                                                            (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                           Judge



          Digitally signed
          by NAVEEN
          KUMAR
          SARATHE
          Date: 2021.06.23
          17:50:19 +05'30'