Bail Appl. No. 39/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I. FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI BAIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2018 IN REMAND APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2018 (R.C. No. 14/E/2017CBI, EOW, Mumbai)
KALPESH JAYRAM KOSHTI,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Aged 41 years,
Having address at 71/848,
Panchvati Apartment, Sola Road,
Narnpura, Ahmedabad 380013. Applicant / Orig. Accused
V/s.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (Through CBI, EOW, Mumbai.) Respondent/ Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE, (C. R. No. 51). DATED : 22nd January, 2018.
Mr. S. P. Parab, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accd.
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 Kalpesh Jayram Koshti for bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against whom the offences punishable u/sec. 120(B) r/w 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code and u/sec. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act have been registered by CBI vide R.C. No. 14/E/2017CBI, EOW, Mumbai.
2Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the applicant/original accused 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 applicant/accused. documents produced on
behalf of the I have also perused the say given by the prosecution.
3 The applicant/accused has contended that even if the case of prosecution is admitted as it is for the sake of arguments, the applicant/accused was never a party to the fraud. The applicant/accused neither was party to any representation in the entire fraud, nor a party to any of the alleged forgery. None of the ingredients of alleged offences are attracted, against the present as applicant/accused.
There is no material to establish that the applicant/accused has any time conspired with any of the co accused for commission of alleged fraud. It is well settled law that to bring the accused within the ambit of conspiracy, meeting of minds has to be established and same is absent in the entire material before the Court.
The employer of applicant/accused viz. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhil, from whom the money was transferred to the accounts, was not arrested by the CBI. The applicant/accused had not kept money in his possession, as the amount was transferred in the accounts of said company or individual person.
Neither the applicant/accused was aware of the fraud played by the accused persons, nor there is anything to establish nexus of present applicant/accused with the alleged fraud.
The applicant/accused has already repaid the amount and the details of same are already provided to the investigating agency. The applicant/accused has never been benefited in the alleged transactions and has never been subjected to any wrongful gain, as suggested by the complainant without there being any documentary evidence to that effect. The entire case is based on the documentary evidence and same are already in the custody of investigating agency and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of applicant/accused.
The applicant/accused is not attributed any of the overt act in commission of alleged offence.
The chargesheet has been filed in the present matter, hence the custody for the purpose of investigation is not required. In the result, the applicant/accused has prayed to allow the
application.
4The 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 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.
His wife Smt. Philomino Dias stood as a guarantor for the said overdraft facility. Three properties
were mortgaged as collateral security, of which two stood in her name 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/. Thereafter again on 07/10/2011 Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh, the son of Smt. Philomina Dias, 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. Smt. Philomina Dias 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 Smt. Philomina Dias 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 is the owner of Ahmedabad Express News Paper Press. In the said printing press, one Shri. Ravikumar Ashokbhai Bhil is working as a office boy and circulation boy.
On the instruction of applicant/accused, Shri. Ravikumar Bhil had opened two bank accounts for doing money transaction business (Havala Business).
On the instruction of applicant/accused, money had been transferred to the said accounts.
The applicant/accused had taken commission for siphoning of Crime Proceed Money. All the transactions had been done on the instruction of applicant/accused. Hence, the prosecution has
prayed to reject the application.
5 It has been alleged that the applicant/accused is running printing press at Ahmedabad.
The applicant/accused said to have opened the fraudulent bank accounts in the name of his employee Shri. Ravikumar Ashokbhai Bhil. As per his instructions, the money was transferred from the account of M/s. Aashish Communication to the account of M/s. Ahmedabad Sales Corporation. The total amount of
money transferred was Rs. 3,23,75,641. Later on an amount of Rs. 1,35,25,641 was transferred in the account of coaccused Shri. Janardhan Pandey through Flextough Metals Bank Account with IDBI
Bank, Marol MIDC Branch, Andheri, Mumbai. The remaining amount was withdrawn in cash. Thus, it is clear that further investigation is going on. The allegation against the applicant/accused indicates that
the present applicant/accused has placed a vital role in siphoning off the huge amount. Moreover, the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, at this stage, the present applicant/accused can not be released on bail.
In the result, the application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1 Bail Application No. 39/2018 in CBI Remand Application No. 40/2018 (RC No. 14/E/2017C.B.I., E.O.W., Mumbai) is hereby rejected.
2 Bail Application No. 39/2018 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 : :7: Bail Appl. No. 39/2018 “Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed judgment/order”. Upload Date & Time : 23/01/2018 at 4.30 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 :22/01/2018 Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :23/01/2018 Judgment/order uploaded on :23/01/2018