Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge for CBI cases in Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Manoj Hanumant Kharat, a 28-year-old former Single Window Operator at Punjab National Bank (PNB), who is implicated in a multi-crore bank fraud case. The order, delivered by Special Judge Jayendra C. Jagdale on January 16, 2019, highlighted the completion of the investigation against Kharat and dismissed the prosecution’s “vague allegations” of witness tampering.

Kharat, identified as original accused no. 2, was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on December 19, 2018. He faces serious charges under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This case is registered as R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004–CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai.

During the bail application (Bail Application No. 964 of 2018), Mr. Sandeep Bali, the learned Advocate for Kharat, argued that his client had been falsely implicated on “vague and bald allegations.” He emphasized that Kharat was the “lowest level clerk” in the bank, initially assigned clerical duties like data entry in FINACLE, and later in the SWIFT System, under the oral instructions of his superiors. The defense maintained that Kharat had “no role or knowledge at all of the alleged fraudulent transaction of issuing LOUs (Letters of Undertaking).” It was also highlighted that Kharat was previously granted bail in another CBI Special Case (No. 37/2018) on June 12, 2018, and that the investigation in the current case, as far as he was concerned, was complete, with all documents already tendered.

Mr. Omprakash, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI, strongly opposed the bail. The prosecution’s reply (Ex-2) stated that Kharat, along with Shri Gokulnath Shetty (then Dy. Manager) and other co-conspirators, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy in April 2017. They are accused of dishonestly and fraudulently issuing two LOUs totaling USD 1,421,311.82 (equivalent to approximately ₹9.09 crores) in favor of SBI, Antwerp, Belgium, to M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The prosecution alleged that these LOUs were issued without any sanctioned credit limit or 110% margin from the company, and without obtaining required applications, documents, or approvals. They claimed that Kharat, as a Single Window Operator in the Forex Department of PNB, Brady House, was authorized as a “Maker & Checker for SWIFT Messages” using his User ID “331096MK” and was the maker/checker of these unauthorized LOUs. The SPP contended that the case was at a “crucial stage of investigation” and expressed a strong apprehension that Kharat would “resort to all means for thwarting the investigation by tampering with the evidence… and influence the witnesses.”

Judge Jagdale referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Nimmagadda Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013), which outline considerations for bail, including the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, possibility of securing presence at trial, and apprehension of witness tampering, among others.

Applying these criteria, the court found that the prosecution had not raised any specific points regarding difficulty in securing Kharat’s presence at trial or concerns about the larger public/State interest. The Judge critically noted that the prosecution’s statement regarding witness tampering and evidence manipulation was “vague” and lacked details as to “which witnesses, the applicant/accused may influence and what kind of evidence, the applicant/accused may tamper.”

Crucially, the court observed that the investigation against Manoj Hanumant Kharat was “complete and charge-sheet has already been filed against him.” The Judge stated, “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.”

Based on these findings, Special Judge Jagdale decided to grant bail to Manoj Hanumant Kharat, subject to the following conditions:

• Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond: ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
• Surety Bond: One or more sureties of the like amount within two months.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Allowed to be released provisionally after furnishing cash bail of ₹50,000/- temporarily for two months.
• No Departure from India: Not to leave India without prior court permission.
• Passport Surrender: To surrender his passport, if any, with the CBI until surety is furnished.
• Contact Information: Furnish permanent address and contact numbers to the CBI, along with addresses and contact numbers of two relatives.
• No Tampering: Not to tamper with prosecution evidence and assist in the disposal of the trial.
• No New Offenses: Shall not commit any offense while on bail.
• Monthly Reporting: To remain present before the investigating officer once a month, during working days, between 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., until further order.
• Breach of Conditions: Breach of any condition will lead to cancellation of bail.

The bail application was accordingly disposed of, signaling that for Kharat, the judicial process will now proceed with him outside of custody, under court oversight.