:1:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2018
(R.C. No. 14/E/2017нCBI, EOW, Mumbai)
SMT. PHILOMINA C. DIAS W/o. ASHOK SINGH,
Age 52 years, Occ.:Business,
R/a. 1804, Crimson Tower,
Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai.
Applicant/
Orig. Accused No. 3
V/s.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Economic Offences Wing, 11th Floor,
CBI Building, BandraнKurla Complex,
Mumbai.

Respondent/
Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).

DATED :
22nd January, 2018.

Mr. Shyamrishi Pathak, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accd. no. 3.
Mr. J.K. Sharma, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/EOW/Respdt.

ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
accused no. 3 Smt. Philomina Dias w/o. Ashok Singh for bail u/sec. 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure against whom the offence punishable
:2:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
u/sec. 120(B) r/w 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code has
been registered by CBI vide R.C. No. 14/E/2017нCBI, EOW, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused no. 3 and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised objection to grant prayer in the
application. It has given say on the application. I have perused the
application
and
documents
applicant/accused.

produced
on
behalf
of
the
I have also perused the say given by the
prosecution.
3
The applicant/accused has contended that only role upon
which she is sought to be impleaded, is that she stood as guarantor to
the loan availed by her husband Ashok Singh. The entire money from
the bank has infact been siphoned off by the said Pandey Brothers by
befriending Ashok Singh and Ashish Singh. The applicant/accused is a
woman aged 52 years and she has been wrongly arrested.

The
applicant/accused is innocent and she is falsely implicated in this case
by the complainant.

The case of prosecution is based upon the
documentary evidence, which is lying in the custody of investigating
agency. The entire investigation in the matter is completed and no
fruitful purpose would be solved in keeping the applicant/accused
behind the bar. Hence, the applicant/accused has prayed to allow the
application.
4
The prosecution has contended that on 29/07/2011 Shri.

Ashok Kumar Singh through M/s. Ashoka Property Developers has
applied for the overdraft facility of Rs. 2 crores under the Cent
:3:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
Mortgage Scheme to the Central Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch,
Mumbai.

The same was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated
05/08/2011 issued by the branch on the basis of documents submitted
and the collateral security furnished. The applicant/accused stood as a
guarantor for the said overdraft facility.

Three properties were
mortgaged as collateral security, of which two stood in the name of
applicant/accused and one stood in the name of Shri. Ashok Kumar
Singh. The overdraft facility was fully availed by him, but he did not
repaid the bank as per the terms of sanction. As per the procedure, the
account was classified as NPA on 29/12/2014, on which date the
outstanding amount was Rs. 2,09,44,621/н.

Thereafter again on
07/10/2011 Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh, the son of applicant/accused,
through M/s. Aashish Communication Systems has applied for the
overdraft facility of Rs. 2.75 crores under the Cent Trade Scheme to the
Central Bank of India, Tardeo Branch, Mumbai.

The same was
sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 29/11/2011 issued by the branch
on the basis of documents submitted and the collateral security
furnished.

The applicant/accused stood as a guarantor for the said
overdraft facility also. Four properties were mortgaged as collateral
security, of which three stood in the name of applicant/accused and one
stood in the name of her husband Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh.

The
overdraft facility was fully availed by Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh, but he
did not repaid the bank as per the terms of sanction.

As per the
procedure, the account was classified as NPA on 27/09/2013. During
the inquiry into the matter, the bank found that the documents
produced by them were forged and fabricated. There were no such
firms bearing those names and membership numbers. Thereafter again
they both have availed different kind of loans from the bank and in all
Rs. 17 crores were availed by them. The applicant/accused stood as
:4:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
guarantor for all the credit facilities availed by her husband and son and
offered the properties standing in her name as collateral security for the
credit facilities availed by them. She signed the requisite documents.
She was aware that the credit facilities taken by her husband and son
on the basis of false documents. She was very much a part of said
conspiracy. She was one of the beneficiaries of the offence. Out of
defrauded amount, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/н was transferred to her
personal bank account. Hence, the prosecution has prayed to reject the
application.
5
Admittedly, the husband of applicant/accused has been
chargeнsheeted. Moreover, it is the case of prosecution that the loan
availed by the husband and son of applicant/accused was siphoned off
by them along with other accused. As per the claim of prosecution
against the present applicant/accused that she has furnished collateral
security for loan applications presented by her husband and son i.e.
Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh & Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh. Thereby the
applicant/accused stood as a guarantor for the said overdraft facilities.
It has been alleged by the investigation machinery that the husband of
applicant/accused forged and fabricated incomeнtax returns of M/s.
Ashoka Property Developers for the years 2009н2010, 2010н2011 &
2011н2012 as well as balanceнsheets of his concern for the same period
and the son of applicant/accused forged and fabricated incomeнtax
returns of M/s. Aashish Communication Systems for the years 2009н
2010, 2010н2011 & 2011н2012 as well as balanceнsheets of his concern
for the same period.
6
According to the prosecution, the role of applicant/accused
is only that she stood as a guarantor for the loan transactions and has
:5:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
marked her signatures along with the accused i.e. her husband and son
on the said bank documents.

It has also been alleged that the
applicant/accsued was aware and very much part of the criminal
conspiracy.

Rs. 3,00,000/н were transferred to her personal bank
account.
7
It is clear from the allegations as well as record before the
Court that the present applicant/accused only stood as a guarantor for
the loan amount obtained by her husband’s and son’s firms. There is no
specific allegation that she was instrumental to obtain said loan and
misappropriated loan amount or cheated the bank. Being the wife and
mother of accused Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh & Shri. Aashish Kumar
Singh, she must have been performed the said act as per direction of
her husband.

Obviously, there will be no useful purpose served by
keeping the applicant/accused in judicial custody.

The purpose of
securing bail is to procure presence of accused during the trial. The
presence of applicant/accused can be secured by imposing condition.
Her role is also very minor considering magnitude of the said fraud
amount. Hence, the applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail
subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order :н
ORDER
1
Criminal Bail Application No. 38/2018 in CBI Remand
Application No. 40/2018 (RC No. 14/E/2017нC.B.I., E.O.W., Mumbai)
is hereby allowed.
2
Applicant/original accused no. 3 SMT. PHILOMINA C. DIAS
W/o. ASHOK SINGH is hereby directed to be released on executing P.R.
Bond of Rs. 50,000/н (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Further, she is
:6:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
hereby directed to furnish one or more sureties of the like amount
within two months.
3
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 her passport, if any, with CBI.
5
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish her permanent
address as well as permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish addresses of
her two relatives and their permanent addresses and contact numbers
to the CBI.
7
Applicant/accused is further directed not to tamper with
the prosecution evidence and to assist in disposal of trial.
8
Applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
9
Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
10
The Registrar (Sessions) is hereby directed to accept the
cash amount of bail After Treasury Hours.

:7:
11
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
Earlier interim cash bail granted vide order dated
10/01/2018 will be continued till furnishing fresh surety/ies.
12
Criminal Bail Application No. 38/2018 in CBI Remand
Application No. 40/2018 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 : 22/01/2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 22/01/2018
: 23/01/2018
: 23/01/2018
:
:8:
Crim. Bail Appl. No. 38/2018
УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/orderФ.
Upload Date & Time : 23/01/2018 at 4.15 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 :н22/01/2018
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :н23/01/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on :н23/01/2018