Mumbai, India – July 24, 2025 – In a significant ruling from December 14, 2020, a Special Judge for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Greater Mumbai denied bail to Sanjay Juneja, an accused in a multi-crore bank fraud case involving Union Bank of India. The court dismissed Juneja’s arguments challenging the CBI’s jurisdiction and the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act amendments, underscoring the ongoing investigation and prima facie evidence against him.

Sanjay Juneja was seeking bail under Sections 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offenses punishable under Section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy and cheating), and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (criminal misconduct by a public servant).

The Allegations: ₹15 Crore Fraud and Property Overvaluation

The case, registered as RC 0682019 E 0009 by the CBI’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai, originated from a complaint by Amrendra Kumar, Regional Head of Union Bank of India. It’s alleged that between 2016 and 2017, Juneja, representing his company M/s Enigma Fusion Texprint Pvt. Ltd., along with others and unknown public servants, conspired to cheat the bank. They allegedly secured a credit facility of ₹15 crores, which was then misappropriated through fund diversion. Investigation revealed that a property offered as collateral was exorbitantly overvalued at ₹27 crores, when its actual valuation was a mere ₹4.5 crores, with another accused, Satish Patel, playing an active role in this overvaluation.

Sanjay Juneja was arrested on November 7, 2020. His initial bail application, filed on November 11, 2020, was rejected on its merits, with the court noting the active role of the accused in cheating the bank, the nature of the offense involving crores, and the ongoing investigation.

Second Bail Plea: Arguments of Changed Circumstances and Legal Challenges

In his second bail application, Juneja’s advocate, Mr. P.D. Jain, argued for a “change in circumstance,” primarily citing the extension of judicial custody. He also raised several legal challenges:

1. CBI’s Authority to Arrest: Mr. Jain contended that the CBI lacked the power to arrest Juneja on November 6, 2020, as the State of Maharashtra had revoked its general consent for the CBI to investigate cases involving the Prevention of Corruption Act on October 19, 2020.
2. Lack of Prior Sanction (Section 17A PC Act): The defense argued that under Section 17A of the PC Act, it is mandatory to obtain prior approval from a competent authority before investigating an offense committed by a public servant in the discharge of their public functions. As no such approval was obtained, the registration of the FIR and subsequent investigation were deemed bad in law.
3. CBI’s Jurisdiction on IPC Offences: It was submitted that the CBI, operating under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, is only empowered to investigate offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If these PC Act charges were to fall away, the CBI would not have the authority to investigate offenses solely under the Indian Penal Code against a non-public servant like Juneja.
4. Impact of 2018 PC Act Amendment: The defense highlighted that Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, under which the offense was registered, stood “deleted” (omitted) by an amendment effective from July 26, 2018. They argued that, according to principles of statutory interpretation, an omitted provision cannot be prosecuted, as it’s not “saved” by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

CBI’s Rebuttal and Court’s Verdict

Mr. Sharma, the Public Prosecutor for CBI, countered each of the defense’s arguments:

• No Substantial Change in Circumstance: He asserted that merely extending judicial remand did not constitute a “substantial change” in circumstances required for a successive bail application, and all other grounds were available at the time of the first application.
• Prospective Application of Consent Revocation: Mr. Sharma argued that the revocation of consent by the State of Maharashtra on October 21, 2020, had only prospective operation and did not affect cases where action had already been initiated. Since the FIR in Juneja’s case was registered on December 31, 2019, before the revocation, the CBI’s actions remained valid.
• Section 17A Not Applicable to Non-Public Servant: The CBI maintained that Section 17A of the PC Act did not apply to Sanjay Juneja as he is a “non-public servant.” While it imposes a rider on investigating public servants without prior approval, it does not bar the registration of an FIR if a cognizable offense is disclosed.
• CBI’s Jurisdiction Over IPC Offences: The prosecution clarified that the general consent granted to the CBI by Maharashtra on February 22, 1989, specifically included the investigation of PC Act offenses along with “any other offenses committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts” – thereby covering related IPC offenses.
• PC Act 2018 Amendment (Section 13(1)(d)): The CBI strongly argued that the 2018 amendment merely “substituted” and did not “omit” Section 13(1)(d). They contended that individuals who committed offenses of criminal misconduct under the previous Section 13(1)(d) would not be absolved of their liability for acts committed prior to the amendment’s enforcement.

Judge’s Findings and Rejection of Bail

Special Judge S.U. Wadgaonkar concurred with the CBI’s arguments, delivering a comprehensive oral order:

• The court found no substantial change in circumstances to reconsider the second bail application on merits.
• Regarding the revocation of consent, the judge ruled that it operates prospectively and thus did not impact the investigation initiated against Juneja, as the FIR was registered prior to the revocation date.
• The argument concerning Section 17A of the PC Act was dismissed, as Juneja is a non-public servant and thus not entitled to its protection. The court affirmed that an FIR can be registered if a cognizable offense is disclosed, with the rider on investigation applying specifically to public servants.
• On CBI’s jurisdiction over IPC offenses, the judge confirmed that the general consent explicitly allowed the CBI to investigate related IPC offenses arising from the same transaction.
• Crucially, concerning the PC Act 2018 amendment and Section 13(1)(d), the court relied on precedents from the Delhi High Court, notably the Madhu Koda Vs. State through CBI judgment (May 22, 2020). This judgment clarified that the 2018 amendment did not retrospectively repeal Section 13(1)(d) but rather substituted it. Therefore, offenses committed under the original provision prior to the amendment’s enforcement remain prosecutable.

The judge further noted that even if the PC Act offenses were to fall away, the FIR and investigation against Juneja for offenses under Section 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC would still persist. The court highlighted that there was prima facie evidence on record indicating Juneja as a “principal beneficiary of the crime proceeds,” which amounted to crores of rupees, and that the investigation was still ongoing.

In light of these findings, Special Judge S.U. Wadgaonkar concluded that there were no grounds to release Sanjay Juneja on bail, and the bail application was consequently rejected.