TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er) on such terms and conditions as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice; Any other orders or direction which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter, may also be passed in the interest of justice." 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that both father and mother of the applicant were suffering from Covid-19 disease and were in critical condition. Father of the applicant also met with an accident. No one is to look after them in the house. Applicant is the only son. Thus, referring to the documents annexed with the interim bail application prayer was made to allow the interim bail application. 4. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the S.F.I.O. argued that earlier the applicant had also approached this Court for interim bail on other grounds but same was rejected. Since argument has been completed on the main bail application, therefore, interim bail application cannot be allowed. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the S.F.I.O. also referred to the prayer made in the interim bail application and prayed for rejection of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o referred to the provisions of Section 167, 173 and 309 Cr.P.C. and further argued that mere filing of the complaint / police report within the period of 60 days will not be sufficient to deprive the applicant from an indefeasible right accrued in his favour. Referring to the dates and events of the filing of the complaint, taking of the cognizance and also the date of extended remand it was next contended that cognizance had not been taken within 60 days, therefore, indefeasible right had been accrued in favour of the applicant to release him on bail as applicant had applied for default bail on 18.05.2020 itself. At this juncture, learned Sr. Advocate also referred to the legal position and further argued that right of the default bail accrued in favour of the applicant will not be extinguished by filing of the complaint/challan only. Trial Court while rejecting the default bail prayer has committed illegality. Remand of the accused after filing the police report / complaint could not continue under Section 167 Cr.P.C., therefore, on this ground also remand extended by the concerned Magistrate is illegal and applicant is entitled to be released on bail as custody of the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sus C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40 22. Bikramjit Singh Versus State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 23. Rakesh Kumar Paul Versus State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 24. Achpal Versus State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599 25. Yogesh Mittal Versus Enforcement Directorate MA 1487 /2017 in Criminal Appeal No.2012 of 2017 26. Shri Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Versus Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1 27. Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh Versus State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722 28. State of U.P. Versus Lakshi Brahman, (1983) 2 SCC 372 29. Pradeep Ram Versus State of Jharkhand & Another, (2019) 17 SCC 326 30. Union of India Versus Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190 31. Deepak Bajaj Verus State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14 32. State of Bihar Versus J.A.C. Saldhana and Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 554 33. Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Versus State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 34. C.B.I. Versus Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 11. Learned Sr. Advocate also referred to the points disclosed in the written argument and further argued that there are two stages in Section 167 Cr.P.C. Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have become N.P.A. due to modus operandi adopted by the applicant and other co-accused. Bail order passed in respect of the FIR lodged on the part of the C.B.I. was not related to the Companies Act, therefore, regular bail prayer is also not liable to be allowed. 14. Sri Chaudhary, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicant refuting the submissions raised by the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the S.F.I.O. further argued that bar created under Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act will not come in the way in allowing the regular bail application. Both the courts i.e. High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, therefore, regular bail prayer could be moved directly before this Court. Remand was extended without taking cognizance on the complaint in the present matter thus it indicates that it was beyond the scope of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. No remand could be extended after the expiry of sixty days under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. In that situation only provision for extended remand is given in Section 309 Cr.P.C. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts it was next contended that the applicant is entitled to be released on default bail and also on regular b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gaged in speculative currency transaction. For the aforesaid reason and showing the false M.T. Trade over the years Rs. 4168 crores became outstanding which in turn became N.P.A. Thus, aforesaid group of companies caused a loss of multi-crores rupees to the public sector banks. Complaint also reveals that aforesaid companies adopting aforesaid modus operandi obtained bad debts write off. They also made manipulation in share capital. They have not shown true and fair picture of the business done by them and also furnished wrong reflection of sales and purchase figure. They have also wrongly classified the interest income. 16. It has also been averred that applicant under the garb of MT conducted moping of interest arbitrage thereby, fraudulently inducing the public sector Banks to obtain credit facilities. Applicant had knowingly falsified the books of accounts and the financial statements deliberately concealing material facts. It is also averred that applicant was also indulged in speculative currency trading unrelated to MT being undertaken by RGC thereby gambling with Banks money which resulted in huge loss. Applicant was instrumental in holding the currency losses in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and some significant orders were passed by this Court on 25.10.2018, 14.11.2018 and 20.11.2018. By order dated 25.10.2018, the Court directed for impleadment of the informant Bank of Baroda on whose behalf arguments were made by Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel. The order passed on 14.11.2018 opened the hearing but for lack of understanding the issues dimensionally, the matter was posted on 20.11.2018. The following order was passed on 20.11.2018: "The three dimensional question which this bail application involves is (a) personal liberty of the accused persons; (b) threat to the investigating agency at the hands of the accused persons to tamper with the evidence; and (c) retrieving the alleged loss caused to the Bank. In a written constitution like the one we have in India, personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 which has a primacy. This fundamental right can only be curtailed by following the procedure established under law. The procedure unless it serves the purpose of law cannot be allowed to defeat the basic right. Sri S.V. Raju, learned Senior Counsel, reiterating his stand, would argue that the outstanding liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the situation would be different and the obligation resting on the CBI would have to be weighed with rather a higher degree of sensitivity towards personal liberty of an accused which by its very nature is fundamental. At this juncture, Sri Raju hammers on the submission that in a case where charge sheet has been filed, there is hardly any scope for the investigation to canvass that there is any apprehension of tampering with the evidences by an accused person. All these aspects would be considered by the Court. List this matter on 27th of November, 2018 in terms of the order already passed." Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on 27.11.2018 and 28.11.2018 and the following order was passed on 28.11.2018: Sri S.V. Raju learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Krishna learned counsel for the accused applicant has concluded his arguments in the bail application. Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra learned counsel for the C.B.I. has also concluded his arguments barring for the fact that some decisions are to be cited by him in support of the arguments advanced. Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha learned counsel for the Bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irectgor of M/s RGPL, FIR named accused in this case and also pending against Sri Brijesh Shankar Mishra, CFO of M/s RGPL, Sri Manoj Upadhyay, Senior Manager of M/s RGPL, Sri Shailesh Rawat, GM Banking and Finance of M/s RGPL, Sri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Assistant Accountant of M/s RGPL, Sri Umesh Kumar Verma, Accountant of M/s RGPL, Sri Krishan Narain Pandey, GM (Accounts & Audit) of M/s RGPL, Sri N.K. Agarwal, AGM/Branch Head, Sri Ravindra Dalal, Credit Officer/Scale-II, Sri Dheeraj Agrawal, Assistant Manager (Operation & Forex), Sri Radhey Shyam, Senior Manager/ Joint Manager, Smt. Ankita Srivastava, the then Scale-I Officer. Sri Sunando Bandopadhyay, Assistant Manager (Scale-I), Sri Dipesh Narain, Officer, Sri Anil Kumar Rakhit, Senior Manager/ Forex Incharge, Ms. Parul Nigam, Assistant Manager, Operation, Sri Keerthy Anjaneyulu, Chief Manager / Branch Head, Sri Sanjiv Jha, Sr. Manager (Forex) all staff posted at BOB, IBB, Kanpur and Shri Mangalore Devadas Mallya (M.D. Mallya) the then Chairman & Managing Director, Sri Rajiv Kumar Bakshi, the then Executive Director, Sri Atul Agarwal the then Direkctor (Part Time Non Official Director) posted at BOB, Head Office, Mumbai and unknown ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al mens rea was vicariously liable for the commission of offence. This is a submission relevant at the time of trial but not at this stage when the Court is considering the case of Rahul Kothari for bail. Regard being had to the entirety of material placed on record, this Court would find that after filing of charge sheet against Rahul Kothari his further detention in jail would be nothing but a measure of punishment before holding trial. This in my humble view is not permissible looking to the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India hence a case for grant of bail is made out in favour of Rahul Kothari. Insofar as the co-accused Vikram Kothari, Managing Director of the Company is concerned, it has strongly been argued that even if it is assumed that there is a, prima facie, case against him yet after filing of the charge sheet, there is no justification for the CBI to harp on his continued detention which impinges upon the personal liberty of the accused applicant who is to face trial. In nutshell, it is argued that the same very ground on which the co-accused is entitled to be granted bail, in equal measure, is applicable to the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt cases 10 Rajendra Prakash Agrawal versus Union of India and another (2015) 15 Supreme Court cases 233 11 Dataram Singh versus State of U.P and another (2018) 3 Supreme Court cases 22 Learned counsel for CBI also cited the following judgements: Sl. Particulars Citation 1 Nimmagadda Prasad versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 Supreme Court cases 466 2 Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 Supreme Court cases 439 3 Gulabrao Baburao Deokar versus State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 16 Supreme Court cases 190 4 Prem Prakash Verma versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2016) 5 Supreme Court cases 414 5 Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another (2017) 3 Supreme Court cases 406 6 State of Bihar and another versus Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 Supreme Court cases 751 Reference to each decision cited by the applicants and dealing with the principles embodied therein, in my humble view, is uncalled for once the fact situation of the present case is dealt with by recording reasons in the discretionary exercise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled complaint/police report within the period of sixty days, the right of default bail would not accrue in favour of the accused person as has been held by the Apex Court consistently in several cases and is being followed by the Courts till today. Construction of provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in the manner submitted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is not permissible and is not akin to the settled legal proposition. Remand could continue under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. even after filing of complaint / charge-sheet despite this fact that cognizance had not been taken on the complaint. It is admitted case of the applicant that he moved default bail application on 18.05.2020. Since complaint had already been filed on 15.05.2020 and sixty days period was to be expired on 17.05.2020, therefore, default bail was not liable to be allowed. It is immaterial whether cognizance had been taken or not on the complaint/police report on the date of filing of the default bail application. Judicial custody could continue under Section 167 (2) Cr.PC. in the present matter till the court takes cognizance on the complaint as has been discussed herein above. Custody of the applic....