The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Shivansh Agarwal, Director M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited, accused of embezzling Rs 22.13 crore by taking a cash credit of Rs 2000 lakh from Union Bank of India by showing forged, false and misleading documents, including forged/false statement of stock position.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Shivansh Agarwal.
The bail application has been filed by the applicant in Special Case under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S CBI/EOU.IV/EO-II, District New Delhi, pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) CBI, Ghaziabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
According to the prosecution version, on 06.09.2016 the applicant/ accused Shivansh Agarwal, Director M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited has applied to Union Bank of India for credit limit of Rs 2000/- Lakhs against hypothecation of stocks and book debts, to fulfil requirement of working capital and smooth functioning of business. A Pre-Inspection Report of go-down premises of the said company was conducted and Due Diligence Report was submitted by Anil Kumar Rawat, the then Chief Manager of the bank. Accordingly, the bank has granted a credit limit of Rs 2000/- lakhs to the said company.
During investigation, it was revealed that Sri Vikram Dang has not issued any Provisional Trading and Profit & Loss Account in respect of M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited and the Provisional Trading and Profit & Loss statements submitted by applicant Shivansh Agarwal along with application for sanction of credit facilities was forged one. The report submitted by Anil Kumar Rawat, was also found false and misleading. The sanctioned amount of credit facilities in the tune of Rs 2000/- lakhs was siphoned off by applicant/accused in conspiracy with co-accused persons. It was revealed that while availing credit facilities from the bank, the applicant/accused submitted false and forged documents and the loan amount was siphoned off by way of transferring to sundry companies/firms.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations levelled against the applicant are false and concocted. In fact, the applicant was an employee of co accused Sharad Gupta, who was director of the said company. It was co-accused Sharad Gupta, who made the applicant a Director in the M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited as well as of M/s Shivashish Polytubes Private Limited. The applicant has no active role in the affairs of said company and in fact applicant himself is victim of fraud perpetrated by co-accused Sharad Gupta. Along with the applicant, the mother of co-accused Sharad Gupta was also made a director in the said company, which goes to show that the business and affairs of the company were being managed by co-accused Sharad Gupta. The signature of the applicant shown on DIR-12 is forged and the PAN card of the applicant was misused. The applicant was also removed from designation of director w.e.f 01.08.2016.
It was submitted that a letter was forwarded on behalf of applicant, wherein, he has resigned from the directorship of the company. Thereafter, the applicant was again made a director on 05.09.2016 and another form DIR-12 was filed on that behalf. In that process, declaration was made by Ravi Kumar Agarwal and digital signatures contained in the e-mail ID of Indra Tubes Private Limited, clearly show that this ID was also made by said Sharad Gupta.
Counsel further submitted that the loan has been taken by Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited and applicant along with one Amit Agarwal, who was also director of the company. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against applicant, co accused Sharad Gupta and some other persons, whereas, said co-accused Amit Kumar Agarwal, who is named in the first information report, has been exonerated. The charge-sheet shows that various false representations have been made at the time of availing credit limit and it was Sharad Gupta, who was the director of M/s Indra Tubes and also the only authorized signatory for PNB account of Shantinath Impex Company. The main role in perpetuating the fraud is of co-accused Sharad Gupta. The applicant in his capacity as director of Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited has merely submitted a loan application form dated 06.09.2016 requesting for cash credit limit of Rs 20 crores, wherein, he has offered equitable mortgage of commercial property worth Rs 24 crores of the company.
Referring to transfer of amount of loan to sundry companies/ firms, it was submitted that applicant has not committed any cheating of fraud and the evidence shows that it was co-accused Sharad Gupta, who was behind appointment and removal of applicant from directorship of Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited.
Referring to facts regarding appointment and removal of applicant from the directorship, it was pointed out that the entire sequence of events was managed by co-accused Sharad Gupta.
It was pointed out that applicant was appointed as Director on 04.02.2017 and he has rendered his resignation from the directorship on 07.09.2016, while the entire alleged amount has been transferred to Shivansh Polytubes Private Limited on 29.09.2016 and 02.12.2016 and thus, the applicant cannot be termed as beneficiary of the same. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was not a director of Shivansh Polytubes Private Limited at the relevant time. Due Diligence Report dated 09.09.2016 was prepared by Anil Rawat, Chief Manager of bank and all these facts show that fraud was played by co-accused Sharad Gupta in collusion with Anil Rawat by submitting false reports and documents.
It is further submitted that applicant has co-operated during investigation and investigation is already complete and thus, the custody of applicant is no more required. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.06.2022.
It is also submitted that co accused Ravi Kumar Garg, Ajay Lohiya, Mukesh Mittal and Anil Kumar Rawat have already been granted bail.
Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General further submitted that in guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of Satyendra Kumar Antil (supra), the bail applications of economic offences under Special Acts have to be considered and decided on merits and the general guidelines laid down in that judgment are not applicable to such matters.
The Court noted that,
Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant/ accused has played pivotal role in availing the said credit limits by submitting forged, fictitious and false documents and in siphoning off the amount of credit limit and he has been main beneficiary and thus, the case of applicant is on different footing than of co-accused persons, who have been granted bail. While applying for credit facilities, the forged, false and misleading documents were submitted by the applicant-accused. In view of the specific role of the applicant/ accused and considering the fact that he is a main beneficiary, the applicant/accused cannot claim parity with said co-accused persons.
It was submitted that a huge public amount is involved in the matter and that there is a strong possibility that in case the applicant/accused is granted bail, he may abscond and flee from justice.
“It is apparent from facts of the matter that being director of M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited, the applicant has obtained credit limit of Rs 2000 lacs from Union Bank of India by submitting forged, false and misleading documents, including forged/false statement of stock position and Trading/Profit/loss statement and no genuine business was being conducted by M/s Shree Shantinath Impex Private Limited. The loan amount of credit limit was siphoned off through sundry companies/firms and that applicant/accused has been shown main beneficiary. As per first information report, a loss of Rs 22.13 crores of public money has been caused by playing fraud on the bank.
In the case, it was also shown that charge sheet was filed against applicant on 31.12.2021 and cognizance was taken by the Court on 08.09.2022 and thereafter summons and bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant but he did not appear. Thereafter the trial Court has issued non bailable warrants on several dates and later on he was arrested by the C.B.I, on 06.06.2022. It was submitted on behalf of CBI that there is strong possibility that in case the applicant-accused is granted bail, he may abscond or flee from justice.
Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, material on record, quantum of public amount involved in the matter, the specific role played by the applicant/accused and all attending facts and circumstances of case, including the possibility of fleeing from justice, this Court is of view that no case for bail is made out”, the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.