P. K. BAHRI ( 1 ) THESE are three bail applications filed by three different accused which arise from F. I. R. No. 178/94 registered under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hauz Khas (Crime Branch ). ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a conspiracy was hatched among certain accused to obtain Rs. 70. 00 crores purporting as fixed deposit from M/s Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad and get it deposited fraudulently in the account of M/s J. D. International which is a sole proprietorship firm of the accused John Daniel. ( 3 ) JOHN Daniel was planning to start a company called Wens Airways Corporation to fly airtaxies and he needed funds and was thinking to mobilise investments from N. R. Is of Quwait but he wanted initial investment by procuring loan from Indian banks or any other financer. One Pradeep Goel is stated to have got in touch with Daniel and offered his services to procure the loan from the State Bank of India. Daniel was having an account with State Bank of India, Karol Bagh Branch but said Pradeep Goel @ Aggarwal suggested that he should open an account in State Bank of India, Green Park Branch. He was introduced to Y. K. Sharma, accused and on the introduction of the said accused, who is an employee of the said State Bank of India, a current. account No. 9 6 5 was opened in the name of the sole proprietorship firm of Daniel M. s J. D. International in the month of February 1994. Mohan Gupta, accused, was introduced to Daniel by said Aggarwal. In March 1994, Mohan Gupta informed that money could be obtained from Hyderabad and thereafter Aggarwal who visited Hyderabad on return informed that loan could be arranged from Bharat Dynamics Limited. ( 4 ) V. S. MURTHY, who is the Director (Finance) of the said public undertaking, wanted interest of 14. 5% per annum and it is urged that Mohan Gupta introduced Dr. Dhanni who was to act as chief mediator and he wanted that interest of 4. 5% should be given in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts favouring Bharat Dynamics Limited, public undertaking, and 2% of the loan i. e. approximately Rs. 1. 5 crores would be charged as service charges for arranging the loan. Dhanni who was to act as chief mediator and he wanted that interest of 4. 5% should be given in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts favouring Bharat Dynamics Limited, public undertaking, and 2% of the loan i. e. approximately Rs. 1. 5 crores would be charged as service charges for arranging the loan. On the suggestion of Mr. Dhanni, on 3rd May 1994, R. B. Sharma and Y. K. Sharma, accused employees of the bank, went to Hyderabad. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the said public undertaking had surplus funds and Board of Directors of the said company had passed a resolution authorising investment of Rs. 60 crores as Fixed Deposit with the State Bank of India but clarifying that it should not be used for any portfolio management or should not be against any R. B. I. guidelines. It is the case of the prosecution that under the R. B. I. guidelines, no nationalised bank is entitled to give interest more than 14% per annum on a term deposit. Mr. Murthy, accused was authorised by the Board of Directors to invest its amount in the State Bank of India, Green Park Branch, New Delhi in Fixed Deposit. Y. K. Sharma and R. B. Sharma had met Murthy for obtaining the said deposit and necessary forms were got filled in and a letter was typed on the letterhead of the bank which was signed by R. B. Sharma, accused who was then Officiating Manager of the State Bank of India, Green Park Branch. In that letter, the bank offered to pay interest @ 14. 5% per annum on the fixed deposit to be taken out by the said public undertaking. A cheque in the sum of Rs. 60. 00 crores was issued in the name of the bank alongwith a letter in which it was clarified that this amount is to be kept in fixed deposit and Fixed Deposit Receipts are to be issued to the public undertaking. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that this cheque was brought by R. B. Sharma and Y. K. Sharma to Delhi but the same could not serve the object. of the conspirators because that cheque. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that this cheque was brought by R. B. Sharma and Y. K. Sharma to Delhi but the same could not serve the object. of the conspirators because that cheque. could not have been deposited in any other account but could be kept by the bank for only issuing Fixed Deposit Receipts in favour of the said public undertaking. It is alleged that on 5th May 1994 R. B. Sharma alongwith Daniel came to Hyderabad and met V. S. Murthy, accused, and got an entry made in the cheque to the effect "f. D. R. Account No. 965". As already mentioned above, M/s. J. D. International had opened a current account in the same branch of the bank which was bearing No. 8/965. It is the case of the prosecution that R. B. Sharma brought the cheque back to the bank and get filled all the forms and induced his higher officer Mr. Arora to give the clearance and he got the cheque cleared and deposited the amount in the current account No. 8/965 of M/s J. D. International and Fixed Deposit Receipts were taken in favour of M/s J. D. International out of the said amount and then on following day, Daniel, accused, wanted to withdraw Rs. 1. 00 crore from the said account which effort was somehow frustrated by Mr. Arora, Senior Officer of State Bank of India as he wanted that clearance must be obtained from the Head Office. On 7th May 1994, Mr. Bhatnagar of the public undertaking came to the bank and asked for the Fixed Deposit Receipts to be given in respect of deposits of Rs. 60. 00 crores and then the cat was out of the bag. Mr. V. S. Murthy was also stated to have come to the bank on the same date and wanted the F. D. Rs. to be issued in favour of the public undertaking. 60. 00 crores and then the cat was out of the bag. Mr. V. S. Murthy was also stated to have come to the bank on the same date and wanted the F. D. Rs. to be issued in favour of the public undertaking. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused, V. S. Murthy, has vehemently argued that from the very contents of the F. I. R. and from the facts, as have been revealed from the investigation already carrfied out by the police, it is evident that no case whatsoever is made out against V. S. Murthy because in case V. S. Murthy had conspired with other accused, he would not have insisted on having the F. D. Rs. in the name of the public undertaking at all relevant times. He has pointed out that he had acted in the best interest of the public undertaking and wanted this deposit to be with the said branch of State Bank of India in order to obtain 14. 5% interest per annum and at no point of time he had agreed for giving this amount to any third person. He has urged that in case V. S. Murthy had been a conspirator in the crime committed by the other accused, he would have agreed to make the endorsement in the cheque so that the cheque is deposited in the current account of Daniel s firm but he had clearly mentioned that cheque is given in F. D. R. account and not for any current account. He has argued that Mr. Murthy was given to understand by the two bank officers that the F. D. R. account No. 965 would be opened for the public undertaking and Fixed Deposit Receipts would be issued bearing that number in favour of the public undertaking. ( 8 ) WHEN I heard the arguments initially, the case was being investigated by Crime Branch but later on the case had been transferred to C. B. I. so I have heared the counsel for C. B. I. also. It has been urged that V. S. Murthy was well-versed in financial matters and could not have been unaware that according to R. B. I. guidelines, interest of more than 14% per annum could not be given by any nationalised bank on such term deposit and his insistance on getting 14. It has been urged that V. S. Murthy was well-versed in financial matters and could not have been unaware that according to R. B. I. guidelines, interest of more than 14% per annum could not be given by any nationalised bank on such term deposit and his insistance on getting 14. 5% interest per annum would show that he is part of the conspiracy so that the amount goes into the account of Daniel. He has urged that when the cheque had already been issued on May 3, 1994, there was no reason for Mr. Murthy to agree to add "f. D. R. Account No. 965" on the said cheque on May 5, 1994 at the behest of the two bank officials if he was innocent in the matter. ( 9 ) THIS is not the stage for me to express any considered view regarding the involvement of V. S. Murthy in the aforesaid conspiracy. As presently advised, a case for bail has been made out as far as V. S. Murthy, accused, is concerned. He has been arrested on 27th May 1994. His subordinate officers have already been examined by the Investigating Officer. There islittle possibility of his now tampering with any evidence in case he is released on bail. It is no doubt true that economic offences are serious offences and Court should not normally release on bail accused who are involved in commission of such grave offences but the case of V. S. Murthy, in my opinion, stands on a different footing if we00 keep in view the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that he had not, by any act, indicated that Rs. 60 crores should go into the account of Daniel s firm in any manner. On the face of it the cheque in question in law could not have been deposited in account of Daniel s firm by any stretch of rules or reasons. So, he deserves to be released on bail. ( 10 ) AS far as case of Mohan Gupta is concerned, I have gone through the evidence already collected by the police. Apart from some incriminating statements of co-accused, no material as yet has been collected by the prosecution to show that he was part of any conspiracy to see that Rs. 60. ( 10 ) AS far as case of Mohan Gupta is concerned, I have gone through the evidence already collected by the police. Apart from some incriminating statements of co-accused, no material as yet has been collected by the prosecution to show that he was part of any conspiracy to see that Rs. 60. 00 crores which are brought from the public undertaking should go in the account of Daniel s firm. It appears that Mohan Gupta may have acted as a financial dealer who could arrange deposits of a substantial amount in the bank. Be as it may, I find that he also deserves to be released on bail. He was arrested on 16th June j 1994. ( 11 ) AS far as case of R. B. Sharma is concerned, I find that his role is the main role in the present case which has resulted in commission of such grave economic offences. He had got deposited the amount in the account of Daniel s firm when on the face there was no instructions of the public undertaking for depositing this amount in the account of Daniel s firm. There is enough evidence already collected by the prosecution against him. He was arrested on 16th May 1994 but in view of the grave offences of which he is charged, I do not find that he deserves to be released on bail. ( 12 ) I allow Crl. M. (M) 1561/94 and Crl. M. (M) 1752/94 and direct release of V. S. Murthy and Mohan Gupta on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sums of Rs. 1. 00 lakh with one surety to the satisfaction of the Lower Court concerned and direct that they shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court concerned and shall join the investigations whenever required by the Investigating Officer and shall not make any efforts to tamper with any evidence and Mohan Gupta shall not leave Delhi without informing the Investigating Officer. ( 13 ) CRL. M. (M) 1610/94, the bail application of R. B. Sharma, is dismissed.