Sandeep vs C.B.I.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Both the parties are heard. These are first applications filed by the applicants u/s 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 25.12.2012 in connection with Crime No. 38/2012 (FIR No. RC0082012A0001 dated 31.02.2012) registered under Sections 120-B, 467, 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 Manmohan Yadav has applied for cash credit loan for the purpose of M/s. Radhika Warehouse. The co-accused persons namely Sandeep Yadav and Deepak Yadav are the guarantors. It is contended by Shri Saraswat that M/s. Radhika Warehouse is owned by Manmohan Yadav and as per the valuation report of the CBI, its present value comes to Rs. 2,30,00,000/- (rupees two crores thirty lakhs) and the outstanding loan is of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- (rupees one crore sixty five lakhs). The order of recovery of the said dues has already been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is further contended by Shri Saraswat that if the applicant is released on bail, then he shall not raise any objection for recovery of the said public money, as directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, the amount outstanding may be recovered by selling the properties belonging to the applicant in the name of M/s. Radhika Warehouse. If the public money has been recovered, which is the cause to make out a case against the present applicant, then the trial may go on, which is based upon the documentary evidence. However, subject to the aforesaid condition, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Shri A.K. Saraswat and Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the guarantors in other two bail petitions, contended that once borrower himself is ready to deposit the entire amount by selling his assets, at that juncture, the liability for recovery against them would not arise. However, subject to the undertaking of the borrower, they may also be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent/CBI opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of the arguments and on perusal of the material collected by the prosecution in case diary, without commenting on the merits of the case, these three applications are allowed and it is directed that applicant Sandeep s/o Beniprasad Yadav, Manmohan Yadav s/o Murarilal Yadav and Deepak s/o Beni Prasad Yadav be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned C.J.M./J.M.F.C. for their appearance before him or trial Court, as the case may be, on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.

That before the trial Judge respective borrowers in the individual crime number shall submit their affidavit regarding recovery of the entire amount by selling their properties, on taking steps by the Bank or CBI, wherein they shall not raise any objection on such sale for recovery of the loan amount, in case Mohan Yadav does not deposit the entire amount, as undertaken by him in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 284/2013, who is the main culprit of this scam. C.C. as per rules.