Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31253 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharam Pal Singh Bumbrah And Another Opposite Party :- C.B.I./ Eou-Iv Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Lal Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav has filed counter affidavit in the Court today, the same is taken on record.
By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicants on bail during the pendency of the trial, in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. RC220 2017 E 0016, Police Station - CBI/EOU-IV/EO - II, New Delhi, under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of I.P.C.
As per the F.I.R., co-accused Deepak Chanana and Bhushan Chaudhary, who were partners of the firm in the name and style of M/s. Jeweline engaged in the business of trading of gold and diamond jewellery, had approached the Punjab National Bank (for short "P.N.B.") in August, 2012 for cash and credit limit of Rs. 450 lacs. The credit facility was co-laterally secured by the personal guarantee of the co-accused along with the properties mortgaged, which the accused-applicants Dharam Pal Singh Bumbrah and Dara Singh Bumbrah claimed to be their property. Subsequently, there were financial defaults and as a result of that, the said bank loan amount became an N.P.A. (non performing asset) on 04.09.2014 with Rs. 5,06,54, 347.66/-. The borrowers and the guarantors were continuously called upon to liquidate the said loan and discharge their liability, but to no avail. On 06.05.2015, the P.N.B. filed an application (Original Application No. 398 of 2015) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi for recovery of the said amount. On 29.09.2016, one Ms. Aruna Sahni lodged a complaint at Police Station - Karol Bagh, claiming that she was the absolute owner of the mortgaged I.P., i.e. Industrial Property bearing Shop No. 4, ground floor, part property bearing Municipal No. 10179, Ward No. XVI, comprised in Plot No. 1151, Khasra No. 1384/1151 at Block T, situated at Abdul Ajiz Road, Naiwala Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was reported that the said property was fraudulently mortgaged by the accused-applicants with the said bank. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the co-accused had dishonestly and fraudulently disposed of the primary security, being hypothecated gold and diamond jewellery, semi-finished jewellery and ornaments and the proceeds of such disposal/sales were not deposited with the bank/complainant and thus, a huge loss to the tune of Rs. 5,06,54,347.66/- was caused to the bank. Role of the present applicants is stated to be that despite the fact that they were not the owners of the said property i.e. Shop No. 4, the same was mortgaged for securing loan to the co-accused named above.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the other co-accused (main accused), who were borrowers, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 01.02.2019 and 26.03.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4214 of 2019 (Bhushan Chaudhary v. C.B.I. Ghaziabad) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10795 of 2019 (Deepak Channa v. C.B.I.), respectively subject to their depositing of Rs. 1 crore each. The same is conditional bail because the mode in which the said amount is to be paid is also described in the said order. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that since the main accused have been granted bail, the present accused-applicants, being only sureties, are also entitled to be granted bail. He further contended the accused are lying in jail since 18.06.2018, having no criminal antecedent and if released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer made and arguments thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and stated that in the present case, the offence committed is of a very serious nature, in which a loss amounting to Rs. 5.06 lacs (approx.) has been caused to the P.N.B. and therefore, the prayer for bail should be refused.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the facts of the case, taking into account the fact that co-accused have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court and also taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants - Dharam Pal Singh Bumbrah and Dara Singh Bumbrah involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of Rs. 2 crores with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of I.P.C.
(iv) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of I.P.C.
(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vi) The applicants shall surrender his passport with the court below and not leave the country without court's permission.
(vii) Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and the sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Application stands allowed. Order Date :- 26.8.2019 I. Batabyal