Mumbai Court Denies Bail to Nirav Modi Aide Miten Anil Pandya in PNB Fraud Case

Mumbai, January 20, 2021 – A Special Judge for CBI cases at Greater Mumbai, Shri V.C. Barde (Court Room No. 50), has rejected the bail application of Miten Anil Pandya, an alleged key conspirator and former Manager (Finance) at Firestar International Ltd., a company linked to fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi. Pandya, who has been in judicial custody since March 4, 2018, sought bail citing changed circumstances, including the arrest of Nirav Modi in London and the release on bail of his superior, Vipul Ambani.

Pandya is accused in CBI Crime No. RC.01(E)/2018, pertaining to a massive bank fraud involving Punjab National Bank (PNB). The case alleges a criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal misconduct by public servants of PNB, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs. 6498 crores to the bank through the fraudulent issuance of 150 Letters of Undertaking (LOUs). He is charged under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), 420 (cheating), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Repeated Attempts for Bail

This marks Pandya’s third bail application on merits. His first application (Exhibit-8) was rejected by a predecessor court on June 12, 2018. A second application (Bail Application No. 707/2019) was withdrawn by him on December 19, 2019, with liberty to file a fresh one. The subsequent fresh application (Bail Application No. 51/2020) was also rejected on July 29, 2020, with the court observing that a fresh application could be moved before the current court where a supplementary charge sheet was filed.

Defense Arguments: Changed Circumstances and Parity

Represented by Ld. Advocate Mr. Abad Ponda along with Ld. Advocates Mr. Rohan Sawant and Mr. Gopal Dalvi, Pandya argued for his release based on several “changed circumstances”:

Nirav Modi’s Arrest: He contended that since Nirav Modi is now arrested in London and is no longer an absconder, there is no question of Pandya assisting him to escape.
Parity with Vipul Ambani: Pandya’s counsel highlighted that his superior, Vipul Ambani (Accused No. 9), President (Finance) of Firestar International, had already been granted bail by the predecessor court on August 4, 2018. He argued that Ambani’s role was “much more severe” as he looked after operations of all three firms and allegedly ordered the shifting of documents, yet was released.
Prolonged Incarceration: Pandya has been in jail for nearly three years, and charges have yet to be framed, with extradition proceedings against Modi ongoing in the UK.
No Tampering Risk: He claimed there was no risk of tampering with documents as they are in CBI custody.
Family Dependence: Pandya, aged 39, is the sole breadwinner for his wife, 12-year-old son, and senior citizen parents.
Applicability of IPC 409: The defense argued that Section 409 IPC, typically for public servants, does not apply to him.
Supreme Court Rulings: Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and State Rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, emphasizing that bail should not be denied solely based on the gravity of economic offenses and that “bail and not jail is a normal Rule.”

CBI’s Strong Opposition: Active Role in Concealment and Conspiracy

Ld. Senior P.P. Mr. Limosin, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the bail. He presented a detailed account of Pandya’s alleged involvement:

Major Role in Concealment: The CBI asserted that Pandya, as Manager (Finance) in Firestar International Ltd., was fully aware of the fraudulent transactions and played a “major role in concealment of incriminating documents” to destroy them.
Shifting Documents: Statements of witnesses (P.W.30-Rahul Sisodiya, P.W.29-Ravindra Dinkar Hindlekar, and P.W.111-Anand Cyril Mohan) implicated Pandya in instructing and personally bringing voluminous documents related to fraudulent LOUs, invoices, and even office stationery from the Kamala Mill office to the law firm M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas on the night of February 14, 2018, after the case was registered. These documents were subsequently seized by CBI.
Additional Charges: A supplementary charge sheet (Special Case No. 49/2019) has been filed, additionally charging Pandya under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender), along with other charges.
Active Role in Fraud: The CBI contended that Pandya was actively involved in the preparation and submission of fraudulent LOUs to PNB, a fraud that began in 2011 and amounted to Rs. 6805 crores.
Absconding Accused: Several key accused, including Neeshal Modi, Subhash Parab, Mrs. Ami Modi, and Mehul Choksi, remain absconding or out of India, indicating the large scale of the conspiracy.
No Parity with Vipul Ambani: The CBI argued there was no parity with Vipul Ambani’s case, as Pandya was directly involved in document concealment with an intent to destroy them, a role not attributed to Ambani in the same manner by the predecessor court. The CBI has challenged Ambani’s bail in the High Court.
Risk of Tampering: The CBI expressed strong apprehension that if released, Pandya, a “senior functionary of Nirav Modi group” and a “main conspirator,” would influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, jeopardizing the ongoing investigation, particularly concerning the extradition proceedings of Nirav Modi in London.

The CBI cited Supreme Court judgments like State of Maharashtra v. Captain Budhikota Subba Rao, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, and Lt. Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for substantial change in circumstances to grant successive bail applications and the importance of considering societal interest in economic offenses.

Court’s Ruling

Special Judge V.C. Barde, after considering all arguments and previous orders, extensively referred to the prior rejections of Pandya’s bail applications. The court reiterated observations from the first rejection (June 12, 2018) that Pandya played a “crucial role in the crime,” was involved in obtaining fraudulent LOUs, and attempted to tamper with “crucial evidence” by shifting documents. The earlier order also noted the “magnitude of multi-fold fraudulent transactions” and Pandya’s “close association with the absconding accused persons Nirav Modi & Neeshal Modi,” concluding that his release was “not within larger interest of the society.”

Regarding the release of Vipul Ambani, the court noted that while Ambani’s bail was granted, the predecessor judge had differentiated his role, stating that merely supplying documents to a lawyer usually doesn’t amount to tampering. However, the current court implicitly agreed with the CBI’s contention that Pandya’s role in actively “concealment of incriminating documents/articles with intention to destroy them in connivance with accused-Nirav Modi, Nehal Modi and other accused persons” was distinct and more severe than Ambani’s.

The court found that the “changed circumstances” cited by Pandya, such as Modi’s arrest or the pendency of trial, did not substantially alter the fundamental reasons for previous bail rejections, especially concerning his alleged direct involvement in evidence concealment.

Consequently, Special Judge V.C. Barde rejected Miten Anil Pandya’s bail application, maintaining that his continued detention is necessary given the nature of the economic offense and the ongoing investigation.