:1:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
CNR No. MHCC020167002018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2018
(R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai)
AMAR SUKHDEV JADHAV,
Age 29 years, residing at Shahad Gavthan,
Opp. Century Rayon Hospital, Shahad,
Kalyan, Thane, Maharashtra421 103,
Serving at Punjab National Bank,
Maker Tower, 7th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai.
(Applicant/accused is in Arthur
Road Jail, Mumbai)
Applicant/
Orig. Accd. No. 4
V/s.
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Bank Securities &
Fraud Cell, BKC, Mumbai.
Respondent/
Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).
DATED :
18th January, 2019.
Mr. J.D. Ved, Ld. Adv. for the applt./original accd. no. 4.
Mr. Omprakash, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respdt.
:2:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
accused no. 4 Amar Sukhdev Jadhav for regular bail u/sec. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against whom the offences punishable
u/sec. 120B r/w 409 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have
been registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, BS & FC, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused no. 4 and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has strongly objected to grant prayer in
the application. The prosecution has given say on the application on
record vide Ex2.
I have perused the application and documents
produced on record on behalf of the applicant/accused. I have also
perused the say filed on record by the prosecution.
3
The applicant/accused has submitted through this bail
application that he has nothing to do with the party or with their
alleged business with the bank for financial assistance, nor he was at
any time authorized or had any authority to do so with check and re
check of the said transaction, as alleged and therefore, the
applicant/accused refrain from touching any merits of the transaction as
far as financial irregularities committed by the party or the senior
supervisory staff of the bank. Neither it is a case of the bank nor of CBI
that the applicant/accused was beneficiary or responsible for the grant
of financial assistance, as alleged, given by the bank to Chandri Papers.
:3:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
After investigation conducted by the CBI for pretty long time, on
17/12/2018 the residential premises of present applicant/accused was
searched by the CBI officers, when nothing incriminating whatsoever
was found and/or are seized. The applicant/accused is of 29 years old
only. He joined Punjab National Bank on 16/01/2012 as a Junior Clerk
and from time to time he was transferred to various branches. Though
during investigation of Nirav Modi’s Case along with other bank staff,
the applicant/accused was suspended, but after scrutiny of casepapers,
bank has taken him back in the service. His duties/job in the bank were
only to do clerical works and not supervisory and/or processing or
clearing parties proposal and as such he cannot be even remotely said to
be connected with the alleged activities. All the relevant papers are
with CBI. The father of applicant/accused is retired railway employee.
In the result, the applicant/accused has prayed to allow the application.
4
The prosecution has filed its reply and submitted that as
per complaint dated 09/03/2018 lodged by Shri. Avneesh Nepalia,
DGM, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai, during April 2017,
Shri. Gokulnath Shetty, the then Dy. Manager and Shri. Manoj
Hanumant Kharat, Single Window Operator, both from Punjab National
Bank, Brady House, Mumbai entered into a criminal conspiracy with
Shri. Aditya Rasiwasia and Shri. Ishwardas Agarwal, both Directors of
M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and
unknown others in the matter of dishonest and fraudulent issuance of
two Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) for USD 560444.44 and USD
860867.38 respectively, totalling to USD 1421311.82 (equivalent
amount of Rs. 9,09,63,956.48), favouring SBI, Antwerp, Belgium on
25/04/2017, the object of which to cheat Punjab National Bank, MCB,
Brady House, Mumbai. The said two LOUs were fraudulently issued to
:4:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
M/s. Chandri Paper & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai without any
sanctioned credit limit to the company and also no 110% margin was
provided by the said company.
The accused bank officials without
obtaining required request application, documents and approval of the
authorities thereto and without making entries in the bank system,
transmitted to the overseas banks. The applicant/accused was working
as Single Window Operator during the relevant time at Punjab National
Bank, MCB, Brady House, Mumbai and authorised as Maker & Checker
for SWIFT messages by suing his SWIFT UserID allocated to him by the
bank.
He was the maker/checker of the unauthorised LOU dated
27/05/2016 issued through SWIFT message MT799 in favour of Bank
of Baroda, Brussels for USD 520000, the SWIFT message MT202 dated
30/05/2016 issued in favour of Bank of India, Osaka, the unauthorised
LOU dated 21/11/2016 issued through SWIFT message MT799 in
favour of Bank of Baroda, New York for USD 520000 and the SWIFT
message MT202 dated 22/11/2016 issued in favour of Bank of Baroda,
Brussels which was due against the unauthorised LOU issued in favour
of the said Overseas Indian Banks. The applicant/accused was arrested
on 17/12/2018 in this case. The case is at crucial stage of investigation
and there is every reason to believe that the arrested accused would
resort to all means for thwarting the investigation by tampering with
the evidence that remains to be collected and influence the witnesses,
which is highly detrimental to the case. Hence, the Ld. SPP for CBI has
prayed to reject the application.
5
Herein, I would like to refer the case of Nimmagadda
Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation [2013 DGLS (Soft.)
404], wherein the Hon’ble Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
have specifically described the considerations for bail application and
:5:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
observed that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations.
6
In view of the abovementioned criteria, it is important to
mention that the prosecution has not raised any point that there is
difficulty for securing the presence of accused at the time of trial. The
prosecution has not raised any point regarding the larger interests of
the State or similar kind of consideration. A vague statement made by
the prosecution that at this crucial stage of investigation, the arrested
accused would thwart an investigation by tampering with the evidence
that remains to be collected and influence the witnesses.
7
It is clear from the record that the investigation against the
present applicant/accused is complete and chargesheet has already
been filed against him. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution
that the applicant/accused may thwart the investigation by tampering
the evidence and influence the witnesses, however no details have been
given by the prosecution as to which witnesses, the applicant/accused
may influence and what kind of evidence, the applicant/accused may
tamper. In short, these are vague allegations and on the basis of such
vague allegations, the personal liberty of applicant/accused can not be
curtailed. There is no any proper reason to keep the applicant/accused
in judicial custody for indefinite time.
Moreover, I have already
mentioned that the chargesheet has already been filed in the matter.
:6:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
Therefore, the applicant/accused is require to be released on bail
subject to certain conditions.
Hence, the application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1
Bail Application No. 968/2018 in R.A. No. 1230/2018
(R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai) is hereby allowed.
2
The applicant/original accused no. 4 AMAR SUKHDEV
JADHAV is hereby directed to be released on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.
50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Further, he is hereby directed
to furnish one or more sureties of the like amount within two months.
3
The applicant/accused is directed not to leave India
without obtaining prior permission from this Court.
4
Further, till furnishing surety, the applicant/accused is
directed to surrender his passport, if any, with CBI.
5
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish his permanent
address as well as permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish addresses of
his two relatives and their permanent addresses and contact numbers to
the CBI.
7
The applicant/accused is further directed not to tamper
with the prosecution evidence and to assist in disposal of trial.
8
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
9
The applicant/accused is hereby directed to remain present
before investigating officer on every Tuesday in between 10.00 a.m. to
:7:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
4.00 p.m. till further order.
10
Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
11
The applicant/accused is hereby allowed to be released
provisionally after furnishing cash bail of Rs. 50,000/, temporarily for
the period of two months.
12
Bail Application No. 968/2018 in R.A. No. 1230/2018
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)
(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dated : 18/01/2019
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 18/01/2019
: 18/01/2019
: 18/01/2019
:
:8:
Bail Application No. 968/2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/order”.
Upload Date & Time : 18/01/2019 at 5.35 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :18/01/2019
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :18/01/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on :18/01/2019