The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of guarantor Deepak Gupta in the Rs 20 crores bank fraud case.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Deepak Gupta.
By way of the application under Section 438 CrPC, the accused-applicants seek bail in anticipation of their arrest pursuant to investigation in Special Case, arising out of Case under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1) (d) & 13(2), lodged at Police Station CBI/EO-I, New Delhi.
The FIR was lodged on 29.6.2019 against M/s Nafto Gaz India Pvt Ltd, Mahadoom Bawa, Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta, Ram Murti Devi, Vijay Kumar, Vyas Dev, Ravinder Pandita and K Gangadharan.
On the basis of a written complaint dated 27.6.2019 of Ms Beena Vaheed, the then DGM and Zonal Head, Delhi (North), of erstwhile corporation Bank, New Delhi.
It is alleged in the FIR that during year 2009-10 to 2012- 13 M/s Nafto Gaz India Pvt Ltd having registered office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, through its Managing Director Mahadoom Bawa availing credit facility of Rs 472.79 crores, from the consortium of eight banks including Corporation Bank, Mid Corporate Branch, Sector-18, Noida, U.P which had sanctioned the credit limit of Rs 20 crores and LC/BG for Rs 85 crores to the company.
The said facilities were secured by Pari Passu charge on Book Debts/current assets amounting to Rs 528.16 crores, Pledge of FD amounting to Rs 12.75 crores, Plant, Machinery and other movable assets amounting to Rs 3.20 crores, Residential building situated at Plot, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi of the Company valuing Rs 5.91 crores and residential property situated at Arjun Nagar, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi in the names of guarantors namely accused Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta and Ram Murti Devi.
The account turned into NPA with outstanding balance of Rs 92.21 crores on 22.11.2012 due to non payment by the party. Thereafter in the year 2013 accused Vijay Kumar and Vyas Dev also stood as guarantors in the loan account of the company and mortgaged another immovable property bearing plot, Laxmi Park, Nangoli Jat, Delhi admeasuring 1000 square yards, owned jointly by them as security exclusively to Corporation Bank.
It was further alleged in the FIR that the property Arjun Nagar in the names of accused guarantors namely the accused applicant, his wife and mother claiming to be the owner of the said property but the property was in the name of dead person and the title deeds submitted in respect of the said property was defective.
The Court noted that,
Investigation also revealed that the said property was wrongly shown as belonging to the accused-applicant which was given on 20 years lease i.e between 5.3.1948 to 4.3.1968 in the name of Late. Rameshwar Das father of accused Deepak Gupta and Bhagwan Das brother of Rameshwar Das given by the original landlord Kaliram. Subsequently, on 16.8.1974 the said property was transferred in the name of one Ram Chander S/o Tika Ram from Rameshwar Das. As such from 16.8.1974 Rameshwar Das and his brother Bhagwan Das had no right title of the said property.
The C.B.I has also found that there is no record available regarding any Will executed by Kaliram in favour of Rameshwar Das and Bhagwan Das and neither the transfer of any part of Khasra, Arjun Nagar in their favour nor their names were recorded in the revenue records. The property was also not mutated in the name of Rameshwar Das or his son Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta (daughter-in-law) and his wife Ram Murti Devi. As per the records of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi under whose jurisdiction the property is situated, a demand notice of Rs 7,46,670/- is still pending for payment.
“Considering the fact that the said property does not belong to the accused applicant or his family members, and they stood guarantors on the basis of the property papers of the said property, as result thereof the bank has suffered losses to the extent of rupees 20 crores. I am of the view that the accused applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Looking at the nature of offence and allegations surfaced after investigation of C.B.I, there is no ground to enlarge accused applicant on anticipatory bail”, the Court observed while rejecting the application.
“However, the accused-applicant is granted 10 days’ time from today to surrenders before the learned trial Court and apply for regular bail and if they do so, his application for regular bail shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made herein above or made by the trial Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the accused applicant”, the Court ordered.