Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pramod Kumar vs Cbi Acb Chandigarh on 1 August, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
211-4 cases
CRM-M-20634-2024
Date of decision: 01.08.2024
Pramod Kumar
....Petitioner
V/s
Central Bureau of Investigation
....Respondent
CRM-M-28987-2024
Malkit Singh @ Malkiat Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
Central Bureau of Investigation
....Respondent
CRM-M-28964-2024
Chhittar Mal Saini
....Petitioner
V/s
Central Bureau of Investigation
....Respondent
CRM-M-28212-2024
Gaurav Kumar and another
....Petitioners
V/s
Central Bureau of Investigation
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr.Jagpal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-20634- 2024.
Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioners in CRM-M-28212-2024.
Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CRM-M-28964-2024 and CRM-M-28987-2024.
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 08-08-2024 20:40:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
CRM-M-20634-2024 2
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Spl.Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-CBI in CRM-M-20634-2024 .
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Standing counsel for CBI,
for the respondent-CBI in CRM-M-28212-2024,
CRM-M-28964-2024 and CRM-M-28987-2024.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. This order shall dispose of four petitions bearing CRM-M-
Nos.20634, 28212, 28964 and 28987 of 2024 as they have arisen out of
the same FIR.
2. The petitioners are seeking the concession of bail under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.RC0052020A0011 dated
08.07.2020 under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B of the IPC and Sections
13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at
Police Station ACB, Chandigarh.
3. CRM-M-20634-2024-Pramod Kumar
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that
he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been made a scapegoat
to allow the true culprits to escape unpunished. It has been asserted that the
petitioner was the State Head of M/s Star Agri, a Company which was providing
collateral management and warehousing services to its clients, including Punjab
National Bank (for short 'PNB'). Golden Agrarian Private Limited (for short
'GAPL'), had availed of a credit facility from the PNB against storage receipts
for paddy and rice. Under this arrangement, funding was secured from PNB for
various types of paddy and rice with Amyra Foods Pvt. Limited (AFPL)
2 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
standing as its guarantors. These stocks were documented as being deposited in
the warehouses of M/s Star Agri under the name of the borrowers, GAPL, and
corresponding receipts were issued by the accused-Company, allowing the
borrowers to obtain loans.
4. It was further argued that the terms stipulated that the stocks could
only be released upon the repayment of the loan to the PNB. However, the
Directors of GAPL had repeatedly obtained release orders from the PNB without
fulfilling its condition. The petitioner was notified by the PNB that the account
of GAPL has been classified as Non Performing Asset (for short 'NPA') and that
there were suspicions of discrepancies in the pledged stocks. Upon receiving
this information, the petitioner visited the site and discovered that the Directors
of GAPL, in collusion with other employees of M/s Star Agri had managed to
release a significant portion of the pledged stocks without repaying the loan, and
without obtaining the required release order from the PNB. In the wake of the
seriousness of the situation, the petitioner promptly filed a complaint on
07.09.2018 with the officer incharge of Police Station Lambi, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
However, in an attempt to protect the actual culprits-namely, bank employees
whose involvement was essential for the release of the stocks-the petitioner was
instead falsely involved in the present case. Learned counsel submits that being
the State Head, the petitioner was overseeing 200 such warehouses across the
State, and thus, it would not have been possible for him to conduct physical
verification at each and every site. It has also been argued that in addition, the
3 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
CBI had lodged the present FIR on the same cause of action as the FIR registered
by the petitioner, which is a blatant abuse of the legal process.
5. A prayer has, therefore, been made by the learned counsel that
since the petitioner has consistently cooperated with the investigation whenever
required and, as a result, was never arrested by the Investigating Agency coupled
with the fact that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on documentary
evidence, he be extended the concession of anticipatory bail as the investigation
is now complete.
6. Learned standing counsel for the CBI, while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by counsel opposite, has contended that the petitioner,
while serving as the State Head of M/s Star Agri, actively colluded with the
Directors of GAPL to dispose of a substantial portion of the pledged stocks,
which was the basis for the loan obtained from the PNB. It has been asserted by
the standing counsel that the petitioner was responsible for conducting periodic
inspections and audits of the CC-WHR stocks against which Storage Receipts
(SRs) were issued. However, the petitioner issued false CIS reports, leading to
the issuance of fraudulent SRs without there being in existence underlying stocks
or commodities.
7. Learned standing counsel for the CBI has further submitted that the
petitioner despite holding the position of State Head of M/s Star Agri
deliberately failed to appoint security personnel as per the warehouse guidelines
of M/s Star Agri and, thus, after entering into a criminal conspiracy with the
other co-accused allowed the Directors of GAPL and AFPL access of the
4 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
warehouses and fraudulently disposed of the hypothecated and WHR stocks,
thereby causing huge financial losses to the PNB amounting to more than Rs.48
crores. The CBI has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of co-
accused Ram Kumar, Supervisor-cum-Watchman of warehouse of M/s Star
Agri, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the role played by the
petitioner in the crime in question stands detailed, including the false entries in
the stock registers made by Ram Kumar, at the instance of none other than the
petitioner.
8. Learned standing counsel for CBI while further vehemently
controverting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua
the petitioner being made a scapegoat in the present case has submitted that no
doubt a complaint had indeed been made by him to the local police, however, it
was only done to fabricate defence in his favour as it had come to the notice of
the PNB that a fraud had been played with it, and the PNB had declared the
account of GAPL as NPA, and had also sent a communication in the said regard
to the petitioner to conduct physical verification of the stocks. It has been
asserted by learned Standing counsel for CBI that it was only thereafter, the
petitioner, for reasons but obvious, lodged an FIR with the Punjab Police to save
his skin, but eventually his active complicity in the fraud was unearthed by the
State police leading to his nomination as an accused in the FIR registered by he,
himself.
CRM-M-28987-2024-Malkiat Singh
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
9. It has been asserted that Golden Agrarian Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'GAPL') was never in actual custody of the
stocks as it was under the physical control of M/s Star Agri which was
responsible for ensuring its safe custody. Upon receiving the commodities
from GAPL, M/s Star Agri, acting as the agent of the bank retained
possession of the stocks, making the bank, through M/s Star Agri, the
effective custodian of the commodities until its release.
10. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Branch Head of the
Bank was responsible for physically verifying the stocks under Ware House
Receipts (WHR). Additionally, the State Head of M/s Star Agri had been
conducting periodic physical verifications of the stocks and also issuing
corresponding receipts to the PNB. Consequently, the petitioner had no role in
either maintaining or verifying the physical custody of the stocks.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the false
implication of the petitioner-Malkit Singh @ Malkiat Singh is evident
from the fact that on the basis of same cause of action, and identical
allegations, three separate FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner.
Pertinently in one of these FIRs, the directors of the guarantor company
(AFPL) had approached this Court and the said FIR had been quashed by a
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2024 in CWP-34277-
2019, on the ground that the bank had not adhered to the principles of
natural justice while declaring their bank account as fraudulent, and
consequently the proceedings arising therefrom including the FIR stood
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
vitiated. It has been further submitted that in this regard even the petitioner
has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR which is pending before
a Division Bench of this Court. Furthermore, the petitioner had duly
cooperated with investigating agency as and when required and his
custodial interrogation was never sought by the investigating agency
throughout the investigation.
12. Learned Standing counsel for the CBI, while vehemently
opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, as one of the Directors of
GAPL, masterminded the entire fraud by disposing of the hypothecated and
WHR stocks in collusion with M/s Star Agri, resulting in losses to PNB
amounting to more than Rs.48 crores. It has been further asserted that the
petitioner, being at the helm of affairs as Director of GAPL, had facilitated
procurement of the credit facilities from the PNB through an application
moved by him. Furthermore, he was the authorized signatory for GAPL
and had executed all the relevant documents including personal and
corporate guarantees, in pursuit of the credit facilities.
13. Learned standing counsel for the CBI has, thus, argued that the
petitioner, by conspiring with the other co-accused, cheated the PNB by
disposing of the hypothecated stocks, failing to deposit the sale proceeds
with the PNB, and creating false invoices and Goods Receipts (GR).
Furthermore, although the stocks were in the custody of M/s Star Agri, the
Warehouse Supervisor-cum-Watchman accused Ram Kumar, in his
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. detailed the role of the
petitioner in the crime in question by categorically stating that the
petitioner and the other Directors of the Company had been given access to
the hypothecated stocks by handing over the keys to them, under the
directions of accused Pramod Kumar who was the State Head of M/s Star
Agri. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the
Statement of Ram Kumar recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
CRM-M-28964-2024-Chhittarmal
14. Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate, for the petitioner-Chittar Mal
submits that the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial vide
summoning order dated 09.01.2024. The petitioner is an employee of M/s
Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. (GAPL), and was working in the capacity of an
Accountant; his role was limited to recording transactions in the ledger
book based on the data provided by his employers. These entries as per the
learned counsel were subsequently handed over to the Chartered
Accountant of the Company, who was responsible for filing the returns.
Learned counsel has further argued that as per the final report presented by
the CBI allegedly there were some discrepancies between the audit
balance-sheet dated 31.03.2015, submitted to the Income Tax Department,
and the provisional balance sheet dated 30.09.2015, submitted to the Bank.
However, it has been asserted by the learned counsel that these
discrepancies cannot be attributed to the petitioner, as his responsibilities
were only limited to recording transactions; whereas the audit reports had
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
been prepared by the Chartered Accountants who have since been
extended the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Learned
counsel has further emphasized that the entire case of the prosecution
hinges on documentary evidence which is already in the possession of the
CBI leaving nothing to be recovered from the petitioner. With the
investigation complete and no risk of any tampering with the evidence, the
petitioner, therefore, deserves to be extended the concession of anticipatory
bail.
15. Learned standing counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has
prayed for dismissal of the instant petition by arguing that the petitioner
was an active participant in a huge fraud orchestrated by the Directors of
GAPL, which had caused catastrophic losses to the PNB amounting to
more than Rs.48 crores. GAPL in collusion with M/s Star Agri , dishonestly
and fraudulently disposed of hypothecated and WHR stocks and thereafter,
diverted the funds. Still further, as an accountant of GAPL, the petitioner
prepared the trial balance and other financial documents presented to the
PNB, and for other related purposes. The petitioner was also responsible
for maintaining accounts, and it was in fact, the petitioner who had
provided all the information to the Chartered Accountants. Still further, the
petitioner prepared and submitted stock statements pertaining to
hypothecated stocks to the PNB under his own signatures. Learned standing
counsel for CBI has further contended that not only this, the petitioner also
submitted cash deposit vouchers and fictitious cash deposits. Furthermore,
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
the petitioner manipulated credit entries to misrepresent the GAPL
financial health to the PNB as a result of which the drawing powers of the
Company were enhanced. In addition, the petitioner also manipulated
entries regarding unsecured loans and sundry creditors, leading to
discrepancies between the audit report and the income tax reports. It was
therefore, vehemently argued by the learned standing counsel for CBI that
these stock statements and the fraudulent entries signed and submitted by
the petitioner, evidenced his active involvement in the huge fraud
perpetrated upon the PNB.
CRM-M-28212-2024-Gaurav and Akhilesh
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Gaurav & Akhilesh
Yadav submits that false implication of the petitioners is evident from the
fact that their names do not appear in the FIR No.RC0052020A0011. It
has been submitted that it was during investigation, the petitioners were
falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has argued that
although the petitioners were employed by M/s Star Agri for supervision of
the stocks, audit was conducted by some other persons including co-
accused Mahesh Chandra Rathore and other auditors who visited the site
and carried out a physical verification of the alleged stocks. It has been
further submitted that during the period the petitioners were engaged with
the Company they had submitted only one report in the year 2017.
Furthermore, this report according to the statement given by Sh. Hira Lal,
Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, was an accurate report, therefore,
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
no deficiency in service, much less fraud, could be attributed to the
petitioners. It has been further submitted that the investigation in the
present case is complete and thus, there can be no likelihood of the
petitioners tampering with evidence as the entire prosecution case hinges
on documentary evidence which is already in the possession of the CBI.
17. Learned standing counsel for the CBI, while opposing the
prayer and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, has argued
that both the petitioners were active participants in the crime in question.
As auditors for M/s Star Agri, they colluded with the Directors of GAPL
and other officials of M/s Star Agri, to submit false stock audit reports in lieu
of financial gains.
18. It has been further submitted by the learned standing counsel for
CBI that when the PNB officials inspected the stocks on 06.06.2018, 29.06.2018
and 17.07.2018, they found discrepancies - the stock was missing and did not
match the stock statements and the sale proceeds were not deposited in the PNB.
This discrepancy, therefore, highlighted the involvement and role played by the
petitioners in the crime in question and clearly hinted towards both these
petitioners being conspiring with the other co-accused which had resulted in
huge financial losses to the PNB.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material placed on record.
20. When deciding an application for anticipatory bail, especially in
cases involving economic, a Court must meticulously evaluate the severity and
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
potential societal impact of the allegations in the FIR. Additionally, the Court
should examine the antecedents of the accused and the likelihood of absconding.
In Sushila Aggarwal's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court
underscored the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of evaluating the nature and gravity of
the alleged offences, the specific role attributed to the accused and the unique
facts of each case, by asserting that the decision must be tailored to the particular
circumstances of each case.
Furthermore, in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 577, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court outlined the parameters that Courts should consider when
deciding applications for anticipatory bail in cases involving economic offences,
observing the following:-
"ECONOMIC OFFENSES (CATEGORY D)
66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The
question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its
own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in
the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13
SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field.
The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending
circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the
period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as
such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to
another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to
categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.
Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgements, will
govern the field:-
Precedents
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791:23.
23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side
including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it
could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains
the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of
securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of
the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court.
The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts
and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the
consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial
irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall
under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while
considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will
have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation
made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the
gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for
the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration
with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the
triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that
regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation
is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be
denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant
enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of
the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone
will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have
a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be
on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the
presence of the accused to stand trial.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40:
"39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have
refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground
is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious
involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the
accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the
charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged
document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of
the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to
which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue.
Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of
the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into
consideration."
Though the petitioners have asserted their entitlement for
grant of extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail on account of the
investigating agency not seeking their custodial interrogation, however in
this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the following observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K.
& another, Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2022:
"In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by
the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory
bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial
interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that
the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima
facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence
should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation.
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by
itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
21. Turning to the specifics of the present case, the investigation has
revealed a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the borrowers/directors of GAPL,
namely Harinderjit, and Malkiat Singh, along with the directors of AFPL,
Rajveer and Sukhveer, in collusion with the petitioners, namely, Pramod Kumar,
Chhittar Mal Saini, Gaurav Kumar and Akhilesh Yadav, to defraud Punjab
National Bank of an amount exceeding ₹ 48,00,00,000. The petitioner, Chhittar
Mal, who served as the accountant for GAPL, allegedly submitted fabricated
documents to the bank, including fake credit entries, to enhance the company's
credit records. This deception was intended to mislead the bank into advancing
loans and increasing the firm's drawing powers.
Further allegations suggest that the other petitioners, namely,
Pramod Kumar, Gaurav Kumar and Akhilesh Yadav, misused their positions at
M/s Star Agri, by playing an active role in the fraudulent disposal of
hypothecated stocks under the "CC - WHR" account with Punjab National Bank,
Main Bazar Faridkot. They allegedly submitted false, forged, and fabricated
documents and circumvented bank procedures and rules. This was corroborated
by the statement of co-accused Ram Kumar, recorded under Section 164. Cr.P.C.
The petitioners, employees of M/s Star Agri, were entrusted by the PNB to
ensure the safe custody of goods hypothecated by the borrowing firms. However,
in connivance with the borrowers, they clandestinely disposed of these goods for
personal gain without the loan being repaid by GAPL.
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099275
Additionally, the Ld. Standing Counsel for CBI has contended that
the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases with similar allegations.
Given the gravity of the charges and the substantial prima facie evidence
suggesting a fraud that resulted in financial losses exceeding ₹ 48,00,00,000 to
Punjab National Bank for personal gain, the severity of the offences cannot be
overlooked.
Therefore, considering the roles attributed to the petitioners and
adopting a prudent and cautious approach, this court finds no grounds to grant
bail to the petitioners.
22. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
23. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
August 01, 2024
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No
16 of 16
