Ashok Jain vs C.B.I.

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicant has sought his release on bail in CBI case No. 7 of 2012, under Sections 120B read with Section 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI SPE/ACB Dehradun, District Dehradun.

An FIR was lodged against several accused, including the present applicant, on 28.06.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC alongwith Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against them for the selfsame offences. Accused was not arrested during the investigation of the case, but failed to attend the Court on issuance of summons. He was arrested by CBI in pursuance of non-bailable warrant issued by the court.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written complaint of S.K. Rohilla, Dy. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Dehradun, the case RC0072012A0006 was registered on 28.06.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Branch Dehradun, under Sections 120B, 420, 489, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Romy Malhotra, Prempal, Ram Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Ashok Jain (present applicant), P.K. Jain, the then Assistant Manager and D.K. Rathi, the then Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Aryanagar, Dehradun. It is alleged in that complaint that Romy Malhotra applied for cash credit limit loan in the name of M/s. Sai Enterprises, in the month of august 2011. P.K. Jain, the then Assistant Manager, conducted a pre-inspection of site of unit, address, documents and property of borrower and recommended the loan. On 06.09.2011, a cash credit limit of Rs. 70 Lac was sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, the then Branch Manager. Romy Malhotra mortgaged Flat No. SH 21/315 located at New Moti Nagar, Delhi with the bank as a collateral Security in respect of the aforesaid Loan. Ashok Jain stood guarantor in this cash credit limit loan.

It is also alleged that on 10.10.2011, a cash credit limit loan of Rs. 72 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s. Bharat Manufacturing, whose proprietor was Prem Pal. This loan was under Cent Sahyog Scheme, in which no collateral security and guarantor was required. The pre-inspection and verification of borrower was carried out by P.K. Jain, Assistant Manager. On the basis of his report, D.K. Rathi has sanctioned this loan.

It is further alleged that on the basis of pre-sanction verification and recommendation of P.K. Jain, the then Assistant Manager, cash credit limit loan of Rs. 75 lacs was sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, the then branch manager on 25.10.2011 in favour of M/s. Chela Ram & Sons, whose proprietor was Ravinder Kumar Chela Ram under Cent Sahyog Scheme.

Allegations were also levelled that on 14.11.2012, two cash credit limit loan of Rs. 75 Lacs each was sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, under Cent Sahyog Scheme in favour of M/s. Sharma Industry, whose proprietor was Ravinder Kumar Sharma, and M/s. Krishna & Co., whose proprietor was Ram Kumar and that pre-sanction, verification and recommendation in both the loans were made by P.K. Jain, the then Assistant Manager.

In a nutshell, all the aforesaid loans were obtained by the aforesaid borrowers on the strength of fake/false documents and in this way, the bank was cheated by the accused persons to the tune of Rs. 3.61 crores.

Second bail application of the present applicant was argued at length and was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 5.9.2013.

The applicant filed SLP before the Hon''ble Apex Court, who was pleased to pass the following order on 29.11.2013:

Taking note of the materials placed on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this juncture. Considering the fact that the trial has already commenced, we direct the learned Trial Judge to complete the trial as early as possible, but preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the above observation, the SLP is dismissed.

Now, the applicant has filed the third bail application before the Court, which is devoid of merits and is dismissed.