Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
By means of this application, the applicant-Ramesh Chand Goel, who is involved in Special Case No. 3 of 2015 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015) arising out of R.C. No. 1202012A0005, (CBI vs Ram Singh Thakur & others), under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad seeks enlargement on bail during the trial.
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been in jail since 12.10.2015. He does not have any previous criminal history to his credit. He is an aged sick person. He is suffering from hypertension, diabetes, blood pressure and asthma.
It has also been submitted that prior to submission of charge sheet, the applicant was on interim bail. He himself surrendered before the court below.
It has further been submitted that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Sushila Steel and was conducting his business through Union Bank of India, whereas one Sudhir Kumar Kaura was the Director of M/s International Electron Device Ltd., who was managing the financial affairs and accounts with the Punjab National Bank. M/s International Electron Device Ltd. placed orders on M/s Sushila Steel and handed over letters of credit purporting to be issued by the Punjab National Bank, which were deposited by the applicant in his Bank. Infact the applicant himself was cheated, inasmuch as the forgery, if any, was committed by the Punjab National Bank, who issued letters of credit and further fault was of Union Bank of India, who did not verify the details from the Punjab National Bank and disbursed the amount against the supply of goods. Although it is said that no supply was actually made.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that the Union Bank of India submitted its claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow against the applicant and others, in which a claim for Rs 70,70,63,064.99/- was placed. The matter was decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, who allowed the claim of the Bank for Rs. 9,56,65,749.64/- in respect of Cash Credit Limit Account as against the applicant and others jointly and severally with cost together with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application. The Tribunal further allowed the claim of Rs. 61,13,97,315.35 in respect of Usance Bill Discounting Facility ex-party against M/s International Electron Device Ltd. and M/s Sudhir Kamar Kaura exparte jointly and severally with cost together with pendente lite and future interst @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application till the loan is fully liquidated.
It has further been submitted that even as per the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, as per their own version the total amount outstanding in the account of M/s Sushila Steels were only Rs. 57,70,29,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that any forgery was committed on the part of the applicant. All the collateral are joint with the CC Limit granted to Sushila Steels and Rajat Steels and the valuation of mortgaged property mortgaged with the Bank is Rs. 21,00,00,000/- and there are no chances of the applicant fleeing away, hence, he is entitled to bail.
Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the CBI while opposing the bail application has submitted that the applicant has entered into criminal conspiracy with Sudhir Kumar Kaura. He has fraudulently and dishonestly obtained forged amendments to LCs with fraudulent intention to cheat the Union Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Department of Service Tax and Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Rajat Goel is the son of the applicant, who in connivance with other accused submitted bills under these forged amendments in Union Bank of India for discounting and payments and thereby cheated both the Banks and the Government Departments. Forged bills submitted by the applicant under the forged amendments to LCs were accompanied by lorry receipts of existing and non existing transporters. Some of the vehicles numbers mentioned on the lorry receipts are found to be fake. The applicant along with other co-accused obtained fake acceptances for the bills, which were discounted under forged amendments and submitted in Union Bank of India.
It has further been submitted that the applicant had not fulfilled the sanction stipulation for enhanced limit, but the bills discounted over and above the sanctioned limit and even limit of each amendment to LC and get it discounted fradulently. The applicant along with other co-accused have forged very heavy financial loss to the public exchequer. Valuable security have been forged and the proceeds of the forged security have been credited into the account of M/s Sushila Steel, whose proprietor is the applicant. Hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40, in which it has been laid down that bail is the rule and jail is exception. It has further been held that lengthy trial which may prolong beyond maximum sentence awardable have to be kept in mind. The accused has been detained in jail for offence under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On the other hand, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the CBI has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs Maninder Singh reported in 2015 AIR (SCW) 4921, in which it has been held that such offences are actually public wrongs or crimes committed against society and the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated at public at large, which has large social impact.
Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, punishment, period of detention of the applicant, amount involved and the arguments adduced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge against the accused applicant.
Order Date :- 28.3.2016 Sazia