Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for Branch Manager accused of alleged loan fraud and money misappropriation involving forged KYC documents.
Application under Section 438 CrPC stands rejected; custodial interrogation imperatively required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
9.aba1092.14.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1092 OF 2014
Pritam Vidyadhar Nagarkar. ... Applicant. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC & anr. … Respondents.
Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.
Mr. Anil Singh, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Desai and Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves, Advocate for CBI.
CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 24, 2014
P.C.:
Talwalkar
1/9
2 9.aba1092.14.sxw
3 It is the case of the prosecution that on 10/7/2014 Zonal Manager of the Dena Bank filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC alleging therein that the present applicant was working as Branch Manager of the said bank and was officiating at Mallabar Hill. It is alleged that the applicant herein was working in Mallabar Hill branch since 25th August, 2011.
4 The applicant had canvassed before the authorities that there was deficit of funds in the form of F.D.s and that he could get bulk deposit/bulk business. That he is acquainted with one Mr. Vimal Barot(absconding accused) who had introduced himself as custodian of government departments/corporations funds and was connected with Showman group. That he was to get fixed deposits for the bank from 30/1/2014 to 5/5/2014. The applicant was able to mobilise bulk deposits aggregating to Rs. 256.49 Crores with the help of Shri Vimal Barot from seven depositors whose names and the amount deposited by them are reflected in the first information report.
Talwalkar
2/9
3 9.aba1092.14.sxw
5 It is further alleged that in order to facilitate Malabar Hill branch in mobilizing bulk deposits, Shri Vimal Barot had submitted the details of the organisations/corporations who were to give deposits. The negotiations were done between the Branch Manager and Mr. Barot. The said F.Ds. were confirmed. The deposits were remitted through RTGS. The term deposit accounts were opened at the branch. The procedure for accepting the term deposits is also mentioned in the first information report.
6 It is further alleged that the Branch Manager had not followed with the correct procedure. That KYC documents allegedly submitted by Mr. Barot were not properly verified by the Branch Manager. That it was further revealed that the said documents were forged documents. The applicant in the capacity of a Branch Manager was empowered to sanction loan for Rs. 2 Crores against the bank's own deposit for Trust/Partnership/domestic companies except private individuals. The procedure for sanctioning the loan was that the proposal alongwith KYC documents and the verification report was to be placed before a committee of four persons. That on the basis of the documents submitted by the Branch Manager and the verification
Talwalkar 3/9
4 9.aba1092.14.sxw
report, the committee would sanction the loan and the same was to be disbursed by the Branch Manager. The applicant had not placed the KYC forms before the loan committee.
7 The said seven depositors, within 2 weeks of giving deposits, had filed an application seeking loan against their deposits. The said loan forms were verified by the branch manager and were sanctioned by the committee of four persons including the first informant. It is revealed that the documents as far as KYC forms and other information was concerned, were based on forged documents. All these had come to light only after 4/7/2014 when there was a news item published that Mr. Barot who had represented himself as the representative of Showman Group has duped SIES for Rs. 58 Crores and State EOW was conducting enquiry. On being alerted at enquiry, internal investigation was made and it was revealed that seven depositors who had applied for loan within 2 weeks from the making deposits had also duped Dena Bank by filing forged and fabricated documents. On the basis of the report, the offence was registered against the Branch Manager and Vimal Barot.
Talwalkar
4/9
5 9.aba1092.14.sxw
8 The learned Additional Solicitor General(ASG) appearing on behalf of C.B.I. submits that the case is at a initial stage of investigation and that the applicant should not be protected by way of interim relief.
9 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in fact, the applicant had reposed faith in Mr. Barot who has promised to bring bulk business to the bank. It is submitted that before he took the charge of office, the Bank had no deposits and he had brought business to the bank to the tune of Rs. 800 Crores. That he had brought the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs. 218.81 Crores. He had no knowledge nor had any reason to suspect that Mr. Barot would dupe him or that he will file forged and fabricated documents.
10 According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, it is true that he had accepted the loan forms, but the genuineness of the documents was verified by the officers down the line and therefore, he was given an impression that documents were original. He had only placed the recommendation before the loan committee and that
Talwalkar
5/9
6 9.aba1092.14.sxw
it was incumbent upon the loan committee to verify the genuineness of the documents and the feasibility of the loan proposal.
11 It is further submitted by way of an additional affidavit that the bank has also issued notice to the members of the loan committee to enquire into the same.
12 The learned ASG upon instructions submits that the said notice has been issued on the administrative side of the bank business only to verify the sanction of the said proposals.
13 It is pertinent to note that the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 1st September, 2014. It was submitted that the learned Special Court for CBI had rejected the application seeking pre-arrest bail.
14 According to the learned Counsel, at that stage investigating officer had not issued any notice to the present applicant to remain present for recording statement or soliciting, facilitating any information from him in respect of offence alleged and that the
Talwalkar
6/9
7 9.aba1092.14.sxw
investigating agency had not made any efforts to arrest the applicant after 7/8/2014. The applicant had received the notice dated 26/8/2014. He had filed a reply to the said notice. The applicant was directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer everyday except 7/9/2014 and 8/9/2014 between 10 a.m. to 12 noon till 11/9/2014. The learned Counsel submits that the applicant has complied with the said orders.
15 It is pertinent to note that the investigating agency till today has not obtained either the specimen signature or the specimen handwriting of the accused/applicant. The said evidence would go to the root of the matter since today it is submitted by the learned ASG that the loan applications were written in the handwriting of the applicant. Although there is delay in collecting the said evidence, the investigation is still at the initial stage and the Court is hopeful that the investigating officer would apply their mind and do the needful. It is submitted that accused Vimal Barot is absconding. His whereabouts are not known.
Talwalkar
7/9
8 9.aba1092.14.sxw
16 Taking into consideration the papers of investigation and the submissions advanced across the bar, it is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail. The investigation is at initial stage. The amount that has been misappropriated is a public amount. This Court has taken note of the fact that the loan proposals were made within 2 weeks of giving deposits. It can be inferred that the deposits were given with an ulterior motive of obtaining loan against the said deposits. The loan could not have been recovered since they were sanctioned on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The dubious accounts have been frozen. Learned ASG submits that Rs. 67 Crores have been recovered. It would be necessary to go to the root of the matter.
17 The fact that the depositors had filed loan proposals within 2 weeks of giving deposits should have been seen with suspicion by the seasoned Branch Manager. Although it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Branch Manager/Applicant had also been allegedly duped by Mr. Vimal Barot, this cannot be considered for the time being. It was incumbent upon him to verify the loan proposals with utmost caution. His negligence would heavily cost the bank since the money was public money. Since Vimal Barot is absconding, custodial
Talwalkar 8/9
9 9.aba1092.14.sxw
interrogation of the applicant would become imperative. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that when a common man seeks loan from banks, the bank officers put them to such heavy conditions that most of the time, the purpose of seeking loan becomes infructuous. In the present case, pan cards of the firms, KYC forms ought to have been meticulously scrutinised by the Branch Manager.
18 This would be a fit case for custodial interrogation and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
19 Learned Counsel for the applicant has made an oral request for staying the present order in view of the fact that the applicant is 58 years old and that he has put in almost 39 years of service. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant oral request of the applicant.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)
Talwalkar
9/9
Pritam Vidyadhar Nagarkar
Central Bureau of Investigation
BS & FC
Nationalized Banks Trust Fund and Depositories company
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
