TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Multifab Ltd (SML) and M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd and other unknown persons are parties to a criminal conspiracy during the year 2000-01 in the matter of obtaining Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of Rs. 15 crores from the IDBI by submitting false information and forged documents showing utilization of the loan proceeds of Rs. 15 crores and siphoning off all the funds, so received from the IDBI, for purposes other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned and thereby cheating the IDBI. The prosecution states that the above named accused persons in criminal conspiracy prepared and used forged documents as genuine i.e. Chartered Accountants Certificate, No Lien Account Statements of the bank, invoices showing purchase of machines, while in fact no equipment/machinery was purchased from the said loan proceeds and the amount was diverted for purposes other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned. The company had faxed forged/false invoices of M/s Sulzer and M/s Staubli on 13th February, 2001 to the IDBI from the Fax Number owned by H.B. Chaturvedi and as per the vouchers the deliveries have been made before June, 2000 and all the equipments are imported against LCs. According ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce taken on 22nd May, 2010 and that the petitioner is, therefore, not required for any purpose. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28th February, 2010 and has not been required by the CBI for any purpose and that the evidence has already been collected qua the petitioner. It was lastly urged that prior to the arrest of the petitioner amount had already been paid to the IDBI and that an scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed which is pending before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. 8. Per contra, it is argued by Ms Sonia Mathur, counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the trial court has ordered further investigation and that the petitioner is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company that has defrauded the IDBI to the tune of Rs. 15 crores. The learned counsel has also contended that the present is an economic offence which stands on a different footing and that, therefore, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the medical condition of the petitioner is being monitored by the Jail Authorities and the regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ping passions and prejudices out of their decisions. (f) In which case bail should be granted and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion subject only to the restrictions contained in Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the said discretion should be exercised judiciously. (g) The powers of the Court of Session or the High Court to grant bail under Section 439(1) of Criminal Procedure Code are very wide and unrestricted. The restrictions mentioned in Section 437(1) do not apply to the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail under Section 439(1). Unlike under Section 437(1), there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1) against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. However while considering an application for bail under Section 439(1), the High Court or the Court of Sessions will have to exercise its judicial discretion also bearing in mind, among other things, the rationale behind the ban imposed under Section 437(1) against granting bail to persons accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for lif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (k) If investigation has not been completed and if the release of the accused on bail is likely to hamper the investigation, bail can be refused in order to ensure a proper and fair investigation. (l) If there are sufficient reasons to have a reasonable apprehension that the accused will flee from justice or will tamper with prosecution evidence he can be refused bail in order to ensure a fair trial of the case. (m) The Court may refuse bail if there are sufficient reasons to apprehend that the accused will repeat a serious offence if he is released on bail. (n) For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against grant of bail in the case of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence there is no statutory support or justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. When the Court has been granted discretion in the matter of granting bail and when there is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um of Rs. 40 lakhs with the bank in four monthly instalments. This was despite the fact that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there were as many as 49 accused and each one of them had already been enlarged on bail and that included the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, 11 other Directors of the bank and the case of the appellant, Ex. Vice-Chairman of the bank, was that he had resigned in the year 1999, whereas the FIR was registered in the year 2002." 10. In the instant case the FIR was registered on source information and before registration of the present FIR preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CBI. It has nowhere been disclosed on whose statement the FIR was registered and no one from the bank from which loan was availed came forward alleging that the bank has been cheated by the accused persons. In the order passed by the ACMM at the time of hearing submissions on the aspect of cognizance in the case, it has been observed that the Investigating Officer (IO) has not been able to point out even an iota of evidence in the testimony of the bank witnesses exhibiting that they were deceived by the inducement given by the accused persons. The IO has fu....