2009 (12) TMI 928 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner's defense.
3. Consideration of bail application.
4. Economic offenses and their impact.
5. Previous judgments and their relevance.

Summary:

1. Allegations against the petitioner:
The petitioner was arrested by CBI on 8th April 2009 and charged u/s 420/467/468/471/511 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He, along with nine co-accused, was involved in defrauding Punjab National Bank of Rs. 1,46,71,000/- and attempting to defraud the bank of Rs. 2,72,38,000/- using forged cheques. Specifically, two forged cheques amounting to Rs. 51.65 lakhs and Rs. 55.06 lakhs were deposited in the account of M/s Bahubali Marketing Pvt. Ltd., where the petitioner and his wife were directors. The petitioner and his wife withdrew Rs. 38 lakhs through self cheques, and Rs. 60.61 lakhs were transferred to M/s Analytical Impex Ltd.

2. Petitioner's defense:
The petitioner claimed that his co-accused S.K. Bhargav, a Chartered Accountant, requested him to supply fabric to M/s Sahara India Finance Corporation Ltd. and provided the cheques. The petitioner alleged that he delivered material worth Rs. 10 lakhs and later transferred the remaining funds to M/s Analytical Impex Ltd. upon Bhargav's request. The petitioner argued that the Rs. 38 lakhs withdrawn in cash were handed over to Bhargav.

3. Consideration of bail application:
The court noted that it is not appropriate to analyze the defense in a bail application. It emphasized that no purchaser would give such a huge advance without a purchase order, and the refund would typically be made by cheque, not cash. The petitioner continued to enjoy the fruits of the alleged crime, and nothing had been refunded to the bank despite knowing the cheques were forged.

4. Economic offenses and their impact:
The court highlighted the gravity of economic offenses, quoting the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. and Ram Narain Popli vs. CBI, which emphasized the severe impact of economic crimes on the community and the economy. The court also referred to Champakbhai Amirbhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, noting that serious offenses by bank employees affect public confidence in banks. The court stressed that economic offenses need to be viewed seriously and those involved should not be granted bail lightly.

5. Previous judgments and their relevance:
The court distinguished the present case from Ashok Dhingra vs. N.C.T. of Delhi, where bail was granted after five months in custody, noting that the present case involved public funds. It also referred to M.M. Cooperative Bank Limited vs. J.P. Bhimani & Another, where bail was granted based on an offer to repay a significant amount, which was not comparable to the petitioner's offer to pay Rs. 5 lakhs. In Suresh Chandra Ramanlal vs. State of Gujarat, bail was granted on medical grounds with a condition to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs. The court noted that co-accused Nipun Bansal, who retained a lesser amount, was still in custody.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner should not be granted bail at this stage due to the serious nature of the economic offense and the significant amount of public funds involved. The bail application was dismissed, with observations made solely for the purpose of dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner, without prejudice to the trial's outcome.