HARIOM GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for CBI as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

(2.) This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case No.01 of 2019 (CBI vs. Hariom Gupta and others) arising out of FIR No. RC 219 2017 E 0012 dated 20.06.2017 under section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. CBI/EO-1, New Delhi, during the pendency of trial.

(3.) The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is not a partner of the firm in question and he is stated to have misidentified the property which was mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining the credit/loan. It has not been made clear from the side of the prosecution as to which property was shown by him which was meant to be mortgaged and subsequently mortgaged the other property, the said other property has also not been made clear and there is absolute ambiguity in this regard in the prosecution evidence. He has further argued that Rewati Singh's signatures are said to be forged on the partnership deed but no such report from the Forensic Science Lab has been obtained till date. Further, it is argued that the applicant had left the partnership firm on 02.04.2014 and rejoined the same on demise of one partner, Smt. Indra Gupta on 16.08.2015. During the present transaction in question, he was not partner in the firm but has been falsely implicated showing him to be patron of the firm. It is further argued that in charge-sheet which is annexed at page 160 of the paper book in paragraphs nos. 16.5, 16.12, 16.13, 16.14, 16.17 some transactions have been shown and the amount of the same had been shown credited in the personal account of the applicant but in this regard, it is argued that there was no such bar that such kind of transaction would not be made in view of there being no stipulation in terms and conditions. Such kind of money transactions which involved transaction from the personal account of the applicant would not constitute any offence. It is not an allegation of the prosecution that the money/debt which was taken for a certain purpose was misapplied, rather it is a case of the applicant that the entire money which was taken on debt was used for the same purpose for which it was taken and that simply because the business transaction has failed and the account went NPA, the applicant has been falsely implicated. The accused-applicant is lying in prison since 2.8.2019 and has no criminal history. There are other means available for the Bank to realize the amount of debt such as resorting to proceeding under SARFAESI Act. Hence, the applicant should be released on bail. He has also argued that the co-accused Santosh Kumar Gupta alias Santosh Gupta has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.5.2019 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19735 of 2019, copy of which has been produced which is taken on record.