Pramod Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Both the parties are heard. This is first application filed by both the applicants u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 10/2013 (FIR No. RC0082012A0001 dated 31.02.2012) registered under Sections 120-B, 406/468, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI, ACB, Bhopal.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the loan proposal for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (rupees two crores fifty lakhs) to M/s. Radhika Warehouse & Agro Services, Jaitpura, District Dhar were sanctioned by the Zonal Level Business Committee; Pramod Kumar Agrawal was the Zonal Manager and K. Gopalkrishna was the Chief Manager (Business Head), UCO Bank, Indore and Members of the Committee. The applicants have been made accused ignoring the earlier proposal to turn down such loan. They have granted the loan to the borrower without any reason or rhyme and after going through the guidelines for sanction of C.C. Limit Loan and papers which are available on record for grant of such loan. It is submitted that the Committee, after due deliberation on the proposal sent by the Assistant General Manager and Chief Manager of the UCO Bank, New Palasia Branch, Indore and further looking to the fact that the earlier loan was already granted to them by the Bank. Therefore, the allegations, as alleged by the prosecution, are without thoroughly going through the instructions and proceedings of the Bank. At present both the applicants have attended the age of superannuation and they are ready to cooperate with the prosecution for investigation of the crime. It is also submitted that the investigation is based on documents, which have already been seized and the challan has already been filed. However, there is no necessity to make any seizure of the documents from the present applicants. In such circumstances, prayer is made by the learned counsel for the applicants to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI referring to various columns of the charge-sheet, contended that on the evidence prima facie the fact regarding commission of offence of forgery has been established; therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the observations made in the charge-sheet and the documents produced relating to grant of such loan, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that applicants Pramod Kumar s/o Hukumchandra Agrawal and K. Gopalkrishna s/o late Madhavan Nair are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Therefore, both the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Pramod Kumar s/o Hukumchandra Agrawal and K. Gopalkrishna s/o late Madhavan Nair be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that they shall cooperate with the investigation, which is to be made by the Investigating Agency and also subject to abiding the conditions enumerated u/s 438(2) of Cr.P.C. C.C. as per rules.