UMESH GURJAR vs CENTRAL BUREAU

This petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is filed seeking enlargement of petitioner on bail in R.C.No.26(A)/2015 registered by Bengaluru CBI/ACB/BLR Police for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Shri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that he introduced accused No.4 and 5 to the Indian Overseas Bank and they have borrowed loan. Their account has turned into an NPA. Bank has discovered that the title deeds, which were deposited with the Bank are fake. Resultantly, the respondent-CBI has taken up the investigation. Accused No.4 and 5 have been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. With these submissions, learned senior counsel prays that petitioner also be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/CBI submits that the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail by recording the submission and undertaking on behalf of accused No.4 and 5 that they have availed the loan and would repay the same. It is on record that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as commission. Therefore, he prays that similar conditions may be imposed on the petitioner also.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI & perused the material papers.

In the order dated 04.03.2012 passed in Crl.Mis.No.1190/2016 the learned Sessions Judge, in respect of accused No.4 and 5, has recorded at paragraph No.12 that that petitioners therein have submitted that they had borrowed the loan amount and they were ready to repay the entire loan amount.

It is alleged in the FIR that the modusoperandi used by the accused was that petitioner herein would mobilize the deposits for the Bank and get the housing loan sanctioned in the names of different borrowers. However, Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/CBI submits that accused No.7 was arranging fabricated documents as title deeds. It is to be noted that accused No.4 and 5 have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, they are the principal accused. The petitioner is said to have introduced accused No.4 and 5 to the Bank. In the circumstances, in my view, petitioner shall be entitled for bail pending investigation and trial. Accordingly, it is directed that : (i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner in R.C.No.26(A)/2015 before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 30.03.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon; (iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;

(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer; (v) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and

(vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Petition allowed.