Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1026 (RAJ)

Fateh Singh Lodha v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the matter of F.I.R. No. RC BD 1/2010/E/0007/C.B.I-BS and FC BD-1/2011/E/2008 New Delhi under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. have been deleted and Sections 201 and 204 I.P.C. have been added and also with respect to the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur rejecting the bail application of the accused-petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. came to be lodged by the General Manager of Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai in respect of functioning of Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. for the offence under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. On the basis of the investigation six persons were made accused, who were mainly Managing Director, General Manager etc. of the Bank and against M/s. Samay Trade Link Private Limited. It is alleged that the accused persons have made conspiracy against the Bank and misused the public fund by purchasing mutual funds, bonds, securities and share on higher rates. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 3.10.2011 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner filed bail application before the Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur which was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2011. 3. Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.C. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed. The offence as alleged against the accused-petitioner is not made out. According to the Bye-laws of the Bank only the board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer are the competent authorities to take the policy decisions. The present petitioner was holding the post of General Manager and the co-accused Ratan Prakash Gupta was holding the post of Manager. It has been argued that the co-accused Ratan Prakash Gupta has already been enlarged on pre-arrest bail whereas the petitioner is in custody since 3.10.2011. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The petitioner is retired person and there are no bad antecedents of the petitioner and he is not in a position to tamper with the witnesses or otherwise interfere in the judicial process. In these circumstances it was prayed that the accused-petitioner be released on bail. 4. Mr. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The petitioner is retired person and there are no bad antecedents of the petitioner and he is not in a position to tamper with the witnesses or otherwise interfere in the judicial process. In these circumstances it was prayed that the accused-petitioner be released on bail. 4. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for the State has categorically opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was argued that the co-accused Vipul Pramod Chandra Shah, who was working as Director and Managing Director of Samay Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. and Hamumaan Prasad Kachhawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., their bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C were rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.3.2012. In these circumstances it was prayed that the petitioner who was working as General Manager of the Ajmer Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., his bail application should also be rejected on similar facts and grounds. 5. I have heard Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.C. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, appearing for the C.B.I. and have also gone through the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the bail applications of other co-accused and the order dated 22.12.2011 of the Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur, rejecting the bail application of the accused-petitioner and the other material made available to me for my perusal. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1574 of 2012 and 11759 of 2011 of Vipul Pramod Chandra Shah, Managing Director of Samay Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. and Hanuman Prasad, who was Managing Director of the Ajmer Co-operative Bank, rejecting the bail applications passed the following order: "The accusation against the petitioners is that while they were working on the post at higher level, namely Director and Managing Director respectively a deal was made by their company i.e. Samay Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2006 for selling 170 IDFC 2026 bonds @ Rs. 7,60,715/- per bond to Ajmer Urban Co-operative Bank which was not only at a much higher rate than the existing one but as per the prosecution case, the aforesaid company of the petitioner was not even having the requisite bonds at that time and as a result of said deal, a huge loss had to be suffered by the Bank. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the material on record and without making any further observation on merits of the case because this Court is only considering a bail application, I do not find any just reason to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Consequently, both these bail applications are dismissed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the material on record and without making any further observation on merits of the case because this Court is only considering a bail application, I do not find any just reason to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Consequently, both these bail applications are dismissed. 7. The Sessions Judge in its order dated 22.12.2011 observed as under: " i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls iwoZS esa izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 22-10-2011 dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS] mlds i'pkr~ ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gS ftlls ubZ ifjfLFkfr;ka izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa tkrh gksA lh0ch0vkbZ0 }kjk fnukad 5-12-2011 dks vkjksi&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] mlesa Hkh izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr Qrsgflag da fo:) vijk/k izekf.kr gksuk ekurs gq, vkjksi&i= izLrqr fd;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa tks izdj.k iathc) gqvk gS mlds vuqlkj o"kZ 2006 esa 170 vkbZ0Mh0 ,Q0 lh0 2026 ckWMl eSllZ le; V~sMfyax izkbZosV fyfeVsM vgenkckn ls : 7]60]715@& izfr ckWM dh nj ls [kjhnuk crk;k gS] tks fd cktkj nj ls cgqr vf/kd nj ij [kjhnuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk blds dkj.k cSad dks djksM+ksa :i;s dh {kfr crk;h xbZ gSA blesa fjtoZ cSad vkWQ bf.M;k }kjk tkjh fn'kk funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk djuk crk;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ftl le; ;g ckWM [kjhns x;s] ml le; le; V~sMfyax izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds MhesV vdkmUV es ck.Ml lh ugha Fks] mls igys iSlk ns fn;k x;k] ckn esa mlus le; le; ij ckW.Ml fn;s gSA bl izdkj vtesj vjcu dkWijsfVo cSad ds tujy eSaustj ds :i esa dk;Z djus gq, izkFkhZ }kjk cSad dks djksM+ksa :i;k dk uqdlku djuk crk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka dks ns[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fopkj O;Dr fd;s fcuk izkFkhZ dks tekur ij NksM+k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha gSA 6- fu"d"kZ% izkFkhZ Qrsg flag yks<+k dh vksj ls n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh/kkjk 439 ds vUrxZr izLrqr tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA " 8. I am in agreement with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the order of the Sessions Judge and looking to the fact that the petitioner being General Manager of the Ajmer Urban Co-operative Bank purchased IDFC 2026 Bonds of M/s. Samay Trading Private Limited Ahmadabad for Rs. 7,60,715/- per bond, which was excessive to the rate relevant in the market and hence crores of loss occurred to the Ajmer Co-operative Bank for which the petitioner was also responsible. In my view without commenting on the merits of the case as it will affect the either case of the parties, this bail application of the accused-petitioner stands rejected at this stage.Bail application dismissed. *******