Punjab National Bank Employee Amar Sukhdev Jadhav Granted Bail in CBI Fraud Case

Mumbai, January 18, 2019 – Amar Sukhdev Jadhav, 29, an employee of Punjab National Bank (PNB) and an accused in a significant fraud case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was today granted regular bail by the Special Judge for CBI, Shri Jayendra C. Jagdale, at Greater Bombay.

Jadhav, who was designated as original accused No. 4 in the case (R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0004-CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai), had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was facing charges under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a complaint lodged on March 9, 2018, by Shri Avneesh Nepalia, DGM, PNB, Zonal Office, Mumbai. The complaint alleged a criminal conspiracy hatched in April 2017 between certain PNB officials—Shri Gokulnath Shetty (then Dy. Manager) and Shri Manoj Hanumant Kharat (Single Window Operator) from PNB, Brady House, Mumbai—and Shri Aditya Rasiwasia and Shri Ishwardas Agarwal, Directors of M/s. Chandri Paper and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.

The conspiracy involved the dishonest and fraudulent issuance of two Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) for USD 560,444.44 and USD 860,867.38, totaling USD 1,421,311.82 (equivalent to approximately Rs. 9.09 crore). These LOUs were issued in favor of SBI, Antwerp, Belgium, without any sanctioned credit limit for Chandri Papers and without the required 110% margin. The accused bank officials allegedly transmitted these LOUs to overseas banks without proper request applications, documents, or internal bank system entries, with the clear objective to cheat Punjab National Bank.

Applicant’s Defense

Mr. J.D. Ved, the learned advocate for Amar Sukhdev Jadhav, argued that his client had no involvement with M/s. Chandri Paper or their alleged business dealings with the bank for financial assistance. He emphasized that Jadhav was not authorized to check or re-check such transactions and therefore could not be held responsible for financial irregularities committed by the party or senior supervisory bank staff. It was also contended that neither the bank nor the CBI had alleged that Jadhav was a beneficiary or responsible for granting financial assistance to Chandri Papers.

The defense highlighted that a CBI search of Jadhav’s residential premises on December 17, 2018, found nothing incriminating. It was pointed out that Jadhav, aged 29, joined PNB as a Junior Clerk on January 16, 2012, and his duties were purely clerical, not supervisory or involving the processing or clearing of party proposals. Despite an earlier suspension during the Nirav Modi case investigation, PNB had reinstated him after scrutinizing his case papers. The defense concluded that all relevant papers were with the CBI, and Jadhav’s father was a retired railway employee, supporting his plea for bail.

CBI’s Opposition

Mr. Omprakash, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, strongly opposed the bail application. He stated that Jadhav was working as a Single Window Operator at PNB, MCB, Brady House, Mumbai, during the relevant period and was authorized as a ‘Maker & Checker’ for SWIFT messages using his allocated SWIFT User-ID. The prosecution alleged that Jadhav was the maker/checker for several unauthorized SWIFT messages:

An LOU dated May 27, 2016, for USD 520,000, issued through SWIFT message MT-799 in favor of Bank of Baroda, Brussels.
A SWIFT message MT-202 dated May 30, 2016, in favor of Bank of India, Osaka.
An unauthorized LOU dated November 21, 2016, for USD 520,000, issued through SWIFT message MT-799 in favor of Bank of Baroda, New York.
A SWIFT message MT-202 dated November 22, 2016, in favor of Bank of Baroda, Brussels, which was due against the unauthorized LOU issued to the said Overseas Indian Banks.

The CBI argued that Jadhav was arrested on December 17, 2018, and the case was at a crucial stage of investigation. They expressed apprehension that if released on bail, he would resort to tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, which would be highly detrimental to the case.

Court’s Analysis and Order

Special Judge Shri Jayendra C. Jagdale referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, which outlines various considerations for granting bail, including the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, possibility of securing the accused’s presence, apprehension of witness tampering, and larger public/State interests.

The court noted that the prosecution did not raise concerns about securing Jadhav’s presence at trial or any larger interests of the State. While the CBI vaguely stated that Jadhav might thwart the investigation by tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, the court found these allegations to be unspecific. “No details have been given by the prosecution as to which witnesses, the applicant/accused may influence and what kind of evidence, the applicant/accused may tamper. In short, these are vague allegations and on the basis of such vague allegations, the personal liberty of applicant/accused can not be curtailed,” the judge stated.

Crucially, the court observed that the investigation against Jadhav was complete, and a charge-sheet had already been filed against him. Given this, the court found no proper reason to keep him in judicial custody indefinitely.

Therefore, the court allowed the bail application with the following conditions:

Bail Bond: Amar Sukhdev Jadhav is to be released on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
Surety: He must furnish one or more sureties of the like amount within two months.
Provisional Release: Jadhav is allowed to be provisionally released after furnishing a cash bail of Rs. 50,000/- for a temporary period of two months, pending the furnishing of sureties.
Travel Restriction: He is not to leave India without prior permission from the court.
Passport Surrender: Until sureties are furnished, he must surrender his passport (if any) to the CBI.
Information Sharing: He must furnish his permanent address, contact numbers, and addresses/contact numbers of two relatives to the CBI.
Non-Tampering: He is directed not to tamper with prosecution evidence and to assist in the disposal of the trial.
No Further Offence: He shall not commit any offense while on bail.
Reporting to IO: He is directed to remain present before the investigating officer every Tuesday between 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. until further order.
Breach of Conditions: Breach of any of these conditions will lead to the cancellation of bail.

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. The decision reflects the court’s emphasis on individual liberty when the investigation is complete and vague apprehensions are raised by the prosecution.