9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Charotar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited [for short 'the Bank']. He became a shareholder of the bank on 18.10.99 and was appointed as a Director on the same day. It is alleged that one Chiman Sathi, Managing Director of the said bank, first appellant and other Directors of the bank siphoned off the funds of the bank by bogus loans and fictitious letters of credit in the name of their friends, relatives, associates and name-lender companies either without any security or with wholly inadequate security. 3. The wives of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 along with appellant No. 3 are the Directors of M/s Bhavika Creations which is one of the beneficiaries of the illegal and collusive loans/credit facilities given by the Bank. It is alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Misc. Appeal Nos. 6523/2003 and 6520/2003 before the High Court of Gujarat which were withdrawn. After rejection of Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 479/2003 by the Sessions Judge, the appellants moved a regular bail application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 10003 of 2003) in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court after referring to the clandestine and fraudulent nature of the transactions rejected the application. The said order is challenged in this appeal, urging the following contentions : a) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Directors of the Bank who were also allegedly involved in the said offence have been released on regular bail. [Reliance is placed on order of this Court dated 14.7.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt cancelled the bail for not honouring the undertaking and repaying the dues. The case of Rajendra Banthia (share-broker) is different and he apparently was not directly involved in defrauding the Bank. 7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India and Anr. 1987CriLJ313 has held that this Court should not ordinarily, save in exceptional cases, interfere with orders granting or refusing bail by the High Court because the High Court should normally be the final arbiter in such matters. The crime in which the petitioners are involved is very serious involving a conspiracy to cheat and defraud public institutions in a systematic manner and the punishment is likely to be severe in the event of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
