Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1505 (DEL)

Matang Singh v. CBI

2015-06-05

V.P.VAISH

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This is a petition under Section 438 read with 482 Cr.P.C, seeking anticipatory bail in RC 219/2014/E/0004/CBI/EO-I under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(D)of PC Act 2. Reply to the petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has already been ready and willing to join the investigation. The petitioner received ‘notices dated 29.08.2014 and 23.09.20.14 under Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C. which were duly replied by the petitioner vide letters dated 29.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 (Annexure G of the paper book). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that four companies of “Positive Group (NE Television Pvt. Ltd., M3 Media Pvt. Ltd., Positiv Television Pvt. Ltd. and Mayurath Films Pvt. Ltd.) had availed loan from Canara Bank for expansion’ of the business in four different loan accounts. The Canara Bank filed four cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its dues in the year 2011. The parties entered into settlement on 04.03.2013 (Annexure-D of the paper book), One Time Settlement (OTS) was approved by the bank where in all the four loan accounts were settled on payment of Rs. 100 crores towards full and final settlement. However, it was mentioned in One Time Settlement that it would have no bearing on the pending/ongoing criminal case registered by the bank with the CBI i.e. (RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC) and the said case is pending before learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Pursuant to the said settlement, a joint compromise application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-H, Delhi along with One Time Settlement and the same was accepted vide order dated 12.03.20113. The claims as per the settlement were satisfied and the suit filed by the bank was disposed of. Thereafter (Canara Bank issued NOCs (copies of NOCs are Annexure-F of the paper book). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after more than one year, the bank lodged a complaint dated 26.03.2014 on the basis of which present case was registered on 28.05.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charge-sheet in RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC has been filed without arrest of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after more than one year, the bank lodged a complaint dated 26.03.2014 on the basis of which present case was registered on 28.05.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charge-sheet in RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC has been filed without arrest of the petitioner. In Para 37 of the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that investigation did not reveal any criminal overt act against the bank officials. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is a patient of liver transplant and has been suffering from various complications. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for CBI submits that in One Time Settlement dated 04.03.2013, it was specifically mentioned that the settlement will not have any bearing on the on-going criminal case/proceedings initiated by CBI/police authorities in consonance with law regarding such proceedings and the acceptance of One Time Settlement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the CBI to conclude with the present criminal proceedings. According to her the settlement has no effect with the present case. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for CBI also submits that the custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy between the petitioner and the bank officials. 9. It is not disputed that the complainant, Canara Bank and the petitioner have entered into One Time Settlement in respect of the four accounts and the petitioner has made the payment, of entire settled amount. The One Time Settlement dated 04.03.2013 has been placed on record. Thereafter, the complainant bank has already issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. 10. In the instant case the petitioner has been able to make out a case for anticipatory bail on account of the fact that no recovery of any article is to be effected inasmuch as the entire payment has been made to the complainant bank in terms of One Time Settlement. 11. There is another consideration which can be taken into account for grant of anticipatory bail is that in the settlement dated 04.03.2013, it is mentioned that One Time Settlement will not have any bearing on the on going criminal case/proceedings initiated by CBI/police authorities in consonance with law regarding such proceedings. In the present case, the pending criminal case lodged by the complainant bank with the CBI was RC/BDI/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC. In the present case, the pending criminal case lodged by the complainant bank with the CBI was RC/BDI/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC. The investigation of said case is already complete and the charge-sheet has been filed without arrest of the petitioner which is pending before ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Moreover, the petitioner has undergone’ liver transplantation and is suffering, from various complications. It is also stated that the petitioner is suffering from blood pressure diabetes, blood pressure, palpitations, fatty liver and prostate problem. 12. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner/Matang Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond’ in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer subject to the condition that the petitioner, shall join the investigation as and when required to do so and he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 13 The petition stands disposed of. Bail Application No. 1115 of 2015 14. This: is a petition under Section 438 read .with 482 Cr.PC. seeking anticipatory bail in 219/2014/E/0005/CBI/EO-I under Section 120B, read with 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (D) of PC Act. 15. Reply to the .petition has been filed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has already been ready and willing to join the investigation. The petitioner .received notices dated 29.08.2014 and 23.09.2014 under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. which were duly replied by the petitioner vide letters dated 29.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 (Annexure G of the paper book). 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that four companies of “Positiv” Group (NE Television Pvt. Ltd., M3 Media Pvt. Ltd., Positiv Television Pvt. Ltd. and Mayurath Films Pvt. Ltd.) had availe’d loari from Canara Bank for expansion of the business in four different loan accounts. The Canara Bank filed four cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its dues in the year 2011. The parties; entered in to settlement on 04.03.2013 (Annexure-D of the paper book), One Time Settlement (OTS) was approved by the bank wherein all the four loan accounts were settled on payment of Rs. 100 crores towards full and final settlement. The parties; entered in to settlement on 04.03.2013 (Annexure-D of the paper book), One Time Settlement (OTS) was approved by the bank wherein all the four loan accounts were settled on payment of Rs. 100 crores towards full and final settlement. However, it was mentioned in One Time Settlement that it would have, no bearing on the pending/ongoing criminal case registered by the bank with the CBI i.e. (RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC) and the said case is pending before learned ACMM, Patiala House C&mts, New Delhi.; Pursuant to the said settlement, a joint compromise application was filed before the Debit Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi along with One Time Settlement and the same was accepted vide order dated 12.03,2013. The claims as per the settlement were satisfied and the suit filed by the Bank was disposed of. Thereafter Canara Bank issue NOCs (copies of NOCs are Annexure-F of the paper book). 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after more than one year, the bank lodged a complaint dated 26.03.2014 on the basis of which present case was registered, on 28.05.2015. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charge-sheet in RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC has been filed without arrest of the petitioner. In Para 37 of the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that investigation did not reveal any criminal overt act against the bank officials. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is a patient of Mer transplant and has been suffering from various complications. 21. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for CBI submits that in One Time Settlement dated 04.03.2013, it was specifically mentioned that the settlement will not have any bearing on the on-going criminal case proceedings initiated by CBI/police authorities in consonance with law regarding such proceedings and the acceptance of One Time Settlement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the CBI to conclude with the present criminal, proceedings. According to her, the settlement has no effect with the present case. 22. Learned Standing Counsel for CBI also submits that the custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy between the petitioner and the bank officials. 23. It is not disputed that the complainant, Canara Bank and the petitioner have entered into One Time Settlement in respect of the four accounts and the petitioner has made the payment- of entire settled amount. Learned Standing Counsel for CBI also submits that the custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy between the petitioner and the bank officials. 23. It is not disputed that the complainant, Canara Bank and the petitioner have entered into One Time Settlement in respect of the four accounts and the petitioner has made the payment- of entire settled amount. The One Time Settlement dated. 04.03.2013 has been placed on record. Thereafter, the complainant bank has already issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. 24. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for anticipatory 1 bail on account of the fact that no recovery of any article is to be effected in as much as the elitire payment has been made to the complainant bank in terms of One Time Settlement. 25. There is another consideration which can be taken into account for grant .of anticipatory bail is that in the settlement dated 04.03.2013, it is mentioned that One Time Settlement will not have any bearing on the on going criminal case/proceedings initiated, by, CBI/police authorities, in consonance with law regarding such proceedings. In the present case, the pending criminal case lodged by the complainant bank with the C.BI was RC/BD1/2011/E/007 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC. The investigation of said case is already complete and the charge-sheet has been filed without arrest of the petitioner which is pending before AGMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Moreover, the petitioner has undergone liver transplantation and is suffering from various complications. It is also stated that the petitioner is suffering from blood pressure, diabetes, blood pressure, palpitations, fatty liver and prostate problem. 26. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner/Matang Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond fin the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with, one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required to do so and he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 27. The petition stands disposed of.