P K TEWARI Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two bail applications being bail application No.1238/2014 filed by Sh. P.K. Tewari and bail application No.1246/2014 filed by Sh. Anand Tewari, inasmuch as, both the applications have been moved in case RC No. RCBDI/2013/E/009.

(2.) The case has been registered on the basis of complaint received from General Managar, SBI against M/s. Century Communication Ltd. (M/s.CCL), petitioners Sh. P.K. Tewari, CMD and Anand Tewari, Director, Mrs. Meena Tewari, Abhishek Tewari and other unnamed employees of the company for having caused wrongful loss of Rs.64.17 crores to the bank. Total eight FIRs were registered against the petitioner and the companies promoted by them. Charge sheets were filed in three cases for various offences under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while investigation is pending with regard to remaining five FIRs.

(3.) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the only ground on which the CBI is seeking the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is to recover the originals of two invoices of M/s. Avital Electronics Limited, which are allegedly in the custody of the petitioner, however, as per the sanctioned letter issued by SBI, original invoices had to be submitted to the Bank without which no money could be disbursed. Therefore, original invoices had been submitted to SBI by CCL. SBI itself has written a letter to CBI confirming that the original invoices have been misplaced by it. Despite the fact that the CBI was in possession of this letter, the same was not disclosed either before the learned Additional Sessions Judge or before this Court, even though the petitioner asked for production of the letter. It was only when an application was filed before this Court that the CBI in its reply for the first time accepted that it had the said letter and thereafter handed over the same in sealed cover to the Court. Earlier, the petitioner had joined investigation and traced out some of the original invoices of M/s. Avitel Electronics which were seized in another FIR. Now CBI is claiming that it needed to interrogate the petitioner in order to discover the utilization of fund for purchase of gold. However, an affidavit was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge along with a chart recording that the petitioner had handed over details of the gold and cash seized by the Income Tax Department.