BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
1
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2018
IN
CBI SPECIAL CASE NO. 04 OF 2018
(RC NO. 14/E/2017)
Hitendra Virendra Gangwar
…Applicant/Accused
Versus
The State (CBI, EOW, Mumbai)
CORAM :
DATED :
…Respondent
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.R. TAMBOLI
(COURT ROOM NO.47)
22.02.2018
SPP Mr. J.K. Sharma for the CBI, EOW.
Advocate Mr. Khan for the accused.
ORDER
1.

In the instant application, accused has prayed for bail under Section
439 of the Cr. P. C. He has been arrested in connection with the FIR
bearing No. 14/E/2017 dated 31.08.2017 for the offence punishable under
Section 120нB read with Sections 406, 409, 420,465,467,468 and 471 of
the IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
2.

Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for bail on two grounds namely
change in circumstances and no prima facie case.
Change in circumstances:н
3.

Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is a
government registered valuer and he was on the penal of the CBI. He has
been arrested on the allegation of giving excessive valuation of the
2
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
property in conspiracy with the other accused. He filed criminal bail
application no. 45/18. On 22.01.2018, it came to be dismissed. However,
at that time the present accused was not aware that the prosecution has
filed chargesheet against the four coнaccused. Said chargesheet is
numbered as Special Case No. 04/18. This fact was not within the
knowledge of the present accused. The prosecution suppressed this fact.
The prosecution perused the case before CR No. 51. Chargesheet is filed
against coнaccused before the present court i.e. CR No.47. Hence, there is
change in circumstance. Hence, accused is entitled to file second bail
application.
4.

PerнContra, Ld. SPP for CBI, EOW, Mumbai submitted that the
chargesheet is filed against the coнaccused. In said chargesheet, it is
specifically mentioned that the investigation in regard to the coнaccused is
going on. In pursuance of the said investigation, the present accused has
been arrested. He filed bail application no. 45/18. It came to be dismissed
on merit. While dismissing the application, court has taken into
consideration the merits of the case. Therefore, the said order cannot be
modified. The court cannot review the order of predecessor of this court.
There is no change in circumstances. Hence, bail application is not
maintainable.
5.

It is undisputed that the chargesheet is not filed against the present
accused. It is filed against the four coнaccused. The investigating officer has
right to make further investigation in view of Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C.
I have gone through the order passed in bail application no. 45/18. It
shows that the said application has been decided on merit. Whether
accused was aware about the filing of the chargesheet against coнaccused
3
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
or not? This knowledge cannot be taken as change in the circumstances.
Prior to deciding the bail application, chargesheet was filed against the coн
accused.
6.

Moreover, chargesheet is not filed against the present accused. The
investigation is still pending. On the very same ground, earlier bail
application has been dismissed. It is not the case that investigation is
complete and chargesheet is filed against the present accused. Therefore,
this court hold that there is no change in circumstances since the decision
of the earlier bail application.
No prima facie case:н
7.

Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused had surveyed
the property and prepared the valuation report for the bank. It was the
duty of the bank to verify the genuineness of the document submitted by
the borrower. The bank ought not to have authorized the borrower to
collect the valuation report from the accused’s office as the borrower was
the interested party and he has manipulated the record, more particularly
the page no. 7 by altering the figure mentioned in the original report. The
bank letter dated 21.01.2014 was replied by the accused vide his letter
dted 29.01.2014 clarifying the status that the valuation report page no. 7 is
different from the original prepared and retained by the applicant’s office.
The accused would not have been roped in this case, as one of the accused
as he could have been more a witness, helpful to the prosecution case. The
accused had already informed the bank that the valuation report is
fabricated by the agent who collected the report from the office of the
accused at the instance of the bank. The accused has acted only a a valuer
and the officials of the bank were responsible to verify the valuation as per
4
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
the document submitted to them alongwith ready reckoner rates. The
entire responsibility cannot be fastened to the accused that on the basis fo
the valuation report. Bank never inquired with the valuer about the
abnormal valuation, while disbursing the loan nor they called the valuer to
the bank, even though loan was disbursed repeatedly. The valuation report
submitted by the valuer is based on the document supplied by the bank on
his own. He has no right to dispute the fact about the genuineness of the
document. Accused has been unnecessarily involved in the present case.
Hence, he be released on bail.
8.

PerнContra, Ld. SPP for CBI, EOW, Mumbai submitted that the
accused was panel valuer to the complainant Central Bank fo India. He had
been appointed for the valuation of Mr. Ashok Singh’s property at
Kandivali, Borivali and Naigaon. The only property given as collateral
security mentioned hereinabove for the term loan and other facilities
sanctioned at MMO was dishonestly valued by the valuer and got valued by
other accused persons with the intention of cheating bank. The property
was purchased by Ashok Singh vide agreement for sale dated 18.07.2018
for amount of Rs. 2,36,95,000/н, while the valuation dated 24.07.2012 of
the same property given by the present accused is Rs. 13,75,02,000/н,
which speaks volumes about the manipulation of the value with criminal
intention to cheat the bank so that the limit demanded is sanctioned by
bank it would not have been sanctioned if true facts had been brought to
the knowledge of bank. In view of the fact that there is a huge difference of
crores of rupees in the sale value i.e. Rs. 2,36,95,000/н as on 18.07.2012
and the valuation given by the accused is Rs. 13,75,02,000/н as on
24.07.2012. Accused had been a party to the fraud who had overvalued the
5
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
property with criminal intention of facilitating the sanction of various
facilities sanctioned to Ashish Kumar Singh. He alongwith coнaccused
Mehul @ Sadashiv Pandey arranged for the inspection of the property.
Subsequently the valuation report was prepared and submitted to Central
Bank of India, Tardeo Branch. The valuation of Royal Palms Property for
Central Bank of India, MMO Branch for Aashish Communication System,
was valued by him along with Sanjay Yadav employee of Ashok Singh. The
final report was collected by employee of Ashok Singh from his office at
Borivali (W), Mumbai. The complainant bank had made revaluation of said
property from the other valuer. The realistic value of said property is very
low as compared to the valuation report submitted by the present accused.
He had taken bribe from coнaccused Mehul Pandey and Janardhan Pandey.
This coнaccused transferred of Rs. 10,00,000/нto the account of wife of
accused. From that money, he had purchased new office at Borivali
Mumbai. Accused was having nexus with other coнaccused and also valued
the property as per the instructions from another absconding coнaccused
Mehul @ Sadashiv Pandey. Said fact is confessed by accused as per
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. There is strong
prima facie case against the accused. Moreover, there is no change in
circumstances. Hence, application is not maintainable.
9.

I have already stated there is no change in circumstances, since the
decision of earlier bail application. The earlier bail application has been
rejected on merit. The case of the accused has been considered while
deciding the earlier bail application. Hence, second bail application is not
maintainable. Subsequent bail application is maintainable only in the
condition of change in circumstances.

6
10.

BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
The view of this court gets support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Kajad ,MANU/SC/0541/2001. In said case Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as under:н
У11. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier
bail application bearing Misc. case No. 2052 of 2000 has not been denied by the
respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the
changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second
application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which
is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh
Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Anr. MANU/SC/0665/2000 : 2001 (1) SCC
169 and various other judgments.Ф
11.

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
and Anr., MANU/SC/0045/2005. In said case, Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:н
У20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on
the subordinate for a on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course,
there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being
taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail
application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can
be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the
earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become
obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied
bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in
agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the
guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is
open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a
ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the
country.Ф
12.

In Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Babar and Ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra, MANU/MH/1018/2015. In said case Hon’ble Bombay High
Court observed as under:н
У17. The successive bail application can be considered only if there has
been change in circumstances. The aforesaid circumstance thus cannot become a
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
7
new circumstance. If aforesaid procedure is not followed, there will be no end to
such successive proceedings.Ф
13.

The ratio laid down in aforesaid cases clearly shows that the
successive bail application is maintainable only in the condition of change
in circumstances. I have already held that there is no change in
circumstances since rejection of earlier bail application. Hence, applicatio is
without any merit. It deserves to be dismissed.
14.

In the result, this court pass the following order:н
ORDER
BA 115/18 in CBI Spl. Case No. 04/18 is hereby dismissed.
(S.R.TAMBOLI)
Special Judge (CBI)
Gr. Bombay.

22.02.2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 22.02.18
: 23.02.18
: 26.02.18
BA 115/18 in CBI SC 04/18
8
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDERФ
UPLOAD DATE
27.02.18
Name of the Judge
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
1.13 pm.

Nikita Yogesh Gadgil
HHJ Shri S.R. Tamboli (CR
No.47)
22.02.18
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on
Judgement/order uploaded on
26.02.18
27.02.18