H.B. CHATURVEDI Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for grant of bail in the case registered vide RC No. BDI/2009 E 0005 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 478 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 19th February, 2010 and remained in police custody till 27th February, 2010. The petitioner has been in judicial custody thereafter and has been chargesheeted along with five other co-accused in a case of defrauding the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit Chaturvedi, Amit Chaturvedi, Praveen Juneja all of M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd (SML) and M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd and other unknown persons are parties to a criminal conspiracy during the year 2000-01 in the matter of obtaining Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of Rs.15 crores from the IDBI by submitting false information and forged documents showing utilization of the loan proceeds of Rs.15 crores and siphoning off all the funds, so received from the IDBI, for purposes other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned and thereby cheating the IDBI. The prosecution states that the above named accused persons in criminal conspiracy prepared and used forged documents as genuine i.e. Chartered Accountants Certificate, No Lien Account Statements of the bank, invoices showing purchase of machines, while in fact no equipment/machinery was purchased from the said loan proceeds and the amount was diverted for purposes other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned. The company had faxed forged/false invoices of M/s Sulzer and M/s Staubli on 13th February, 2001 to the IDBI from the Fax Number owned by H.B. Chaturvedi and as per the vouchers the deliveries have been made before June, 2000 and all the equipments are imported against LCs. According to the CBI these forged invoices detail the basis on which the accused persons claimed the disbursement of term loan from the IDBI and ultimately received the payment. Thus the accused availed the term loan facility of Rs.15 crores from the IDBI by furnishing false and fabricated statements of No Lien Account and thereby inducing the bank to release the loan instalments. Further, the loan amount so obtained was siphoned off by them by transferring the amount to other group accounts of the company and to clear their other outstandings.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail which was dismissed by the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 4th March, 2010 on the ground that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and if the accused is admitted to bail there is every likelihood that relevant documents required for the purpose of investigation and for unearthing the entire fraud alleged to have been committed by the accused persons may never see the light of the day as there is every likelihood that accused will tamper the witnesses and destroy the evidence.