TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly before the High Court is not tenable. Present bail application can be entertained and decided by the High Court. Perusal of the record also reveals that one Udai J. Desai had also approached this Court for bail, but bail prayer made by him was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, he approached the Apex Court and he was allowed on bail. Another co-accused Vishwanath Gupta had applied for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the coordinate bench of this Court, as is clear from the record. Order passed on the anticipatory bail application was challenged before the Apex Court, which was dismissed. Applicant is allowed to be released on bail - application allowed. - Criminal misc. Bail application No. - 8620 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2022 - Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J. For the Applicant : Sankalp Narain For the Opposite Party : A.S.G.I. ORDER HON'BLE OM PRAKASH-VII, J. Heard Shri Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Shri Imran Ullah, Pranjal Krishna and Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the S.F.I.O. and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the coordinate Bench (Lucknow Bench) of this Court and applicant was allowed on bail vide order dated 30.11.2018 passed in bail application nos. 2920 of 2018 and 3492 of 2018. Referring to the order passed in the aforesaid bail applications, it was further argued that the Court, while allowing the bail applications, has specifically observed that applicant has not played any representative role in the business affairs of the Company R.G.P.I.L. When the applicant was released on bail, he was immediately thereafter arrested by the S.F.I.O. Since entire interrogation has been completed, complaint has been filed, cognizance has also been taken and there is no need of personal interrogation of the applicant, thus on this ground also, prayer for bail was made. It was next contended that almost all the accused, who were either arrested or applied for anticipatory bail in this matter, have been granted relief and they are released on bail. Other co-accused, who are residing in abroad, have not been arrested till today nor they have surrendered before the court. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the trial in near future. Applicant was in jail in this matter for a considerable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP (Crl.) No. 1247 of 2022, Order dated 21.2.2022 11. Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana Another, SLP (Crl.) No. 1554 of 2022, Order dated 18.4.2022 12. Mohan Krishna Kejriwal Others Vs. State of U.P. and another, SLP (Crl.) No. 2312 of 2022, Order dated 30.3.2022 13. Sujay U. Desai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, SLP (Crl.) No. 1185 of 2022, Order dated 13.5.2022 Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the S.F.I.O. argued that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the accused-applicant. No new ground has been taken in it. All the issues raised in this second bail application have already been discussed and decided while rejecting the first bail application. It was further submitted that the applicant has directly approached this Court for bail. Thus, on this ground also, second bail application is not maintainable. Accused-applicant was the main culprit of the crime. To substantiate this argument, leaned counsel for the S.F.I.O. referred to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency as disclosed in the complaint. Embargo created under section 212 (6) of the Companies Act will come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve increased sanctioned limit from time to time. Later on, on the basis of complaint, M.C.A. (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) vide order dated 21.02.2018 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 212 (1) (3) of the Companies Act formed an opinion that the investigation into affairs of 11 Companies of Rotomac Group is necessary to be conducted by the S.F.I.O. and pursuant to the aforesaid order complainant was appointed as Investigating Officer. On completion of investigation, investigation report dated 06.05.2020 was submitted to the M.C.A. who in turn granted direction to initiate prosecution against the accused whose name appears in the complaint. Complaint also reveals that R.G.O.C. and its promoters and directors have fraudulently induced the banks to obtain credit facility. False/deceptive documents for opening of Letter of Credit was also furnished before the banks concerned manipulating and misrepresenting the financial statement. Allegations is also that aforesaid group of companies flouting the R.B.I. Guidelines obtained M. T. finances and credit facility from the banks. Complaint also reveals that fictitious M.T. Trade were also shown in the financial statement showi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to camouflage the same and the interest income from FD was shown as part of revenue from operation in the financial statements to give a false picture of profitability of MT business. A large amount of these fictitious trade receivables were standing against their undisclosed related parties. Thus, the sum and substance of the investigation conducted in the matter and the facts mentioned in the complaint for prosecution are that concerned Companies were engaged in fraudulent merchantine trade and caused wrongful loss to the Public Sector Banks to the tune of Rs. 7820 Crores approximately applying different modus operandi including siphoning of Bank funds through merchantine trade; falsification of financial statement of the Companies involved in the matter by not showing true and fair views. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the parties. In this matter, as is evident from the record, earlier an F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of the C.B.I. on the basis of same set of facts on which present compliant has been filed. Applicant was enlarged o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions 36 (c) r/w 447, 185, 186, 447, 448 r/w 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 211 r/w 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 registered with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, New Delhi (S.F.I.O.,New Delhi) and pending in the court of Learned Additional District Sessions Judge-9, Kanpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions : 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6. The applicant shall deposit his passport immediately, if not alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
