KEWAL KRISHNA SOOD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail in case FIR No.RC.BD1/2009/E/0019 entitled CBI vs. Dr. Kewal Krishna Sood and Others registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120 -B/34 IPC by the CBI at New Delhi.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner, who is the promoter of a company by the name of M/s Raghubir Hospital Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the hospital'), are that he had dishonestly availed of a term loan of 6.50 crores from the State Bank of India (SBI), Commercial Branch, New Delhi for the purpose of setting up a 150 bedded hospital at Ghaziabad, UP, by submitting forged proforma invoices and receipts issued by a medical company by the name of M/s Gaurav Medical Equipments. Between 01.03.2007 to 15.06.2007, the bank had disbursed the term loan to the tune of 5.63 crores to the hospital and a substantial part of the loan amount had been disbursed for purchasing two machines namely, C.T. Scan system for 1.19 crores and MRI system for 2.44 crores. However, in March, 2009, when the bank officers visited the office of M/s Gaurav Medical Equipments, it transpired that there was no such company operating from the given address and nor was there any clue about its whereabouts.

(3.) A perusal of the charge -sheet reveals that the present case was registered by the respondent/CBI on the basis of a written complaint received from the SBI regarding the alleged fraud of 6.44 crores. After the investigations were concluded, the FIR came to be registered on 16.09.2009 and the charge -sheet was filed on 16.11.2010. The charge -sheet had named the petitioner herein as accused No.1, the hospital as accused No.2, Mr. Anubhav Sood (the petitioner's son) as accused No.3 and Shri Hemant Sharma, an employee of the petitioner, as accused No.4. Charges were framed against the accused persons on 08.11.2012. The prosecution had cited forty one witnesses and out of the said list, ten of the witnesses were public witnesses. Recording of the prosecution evidence had commenced on 03.12.2012 and as on date, twelve witnesses have been examined.