NILOPAM DAS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank of Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta, has sought for anticipatory bail on the allegations of violating the provisions of FERA which stem from sections 50 and 56 of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It has been highlighted in the application for anticipatory bail that he sanctioned a loan to the extent of Rs. 6.31 crores in the year 1995 to the group of companies of one Shri A.N. Ghosh through M/s. Vaibhab Trade & Credit Private Ltd. also to Mafcon International Ltd. against securities. In pursuance of such allegations, he was put under arrest and was subsequently released on bail by the learned court below. In enforcing the claim for anticipatory bail, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is emphatic in his submission that once he was bailed out by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the prosecution of the same in a different case involving an identical amount (6.31 crores) cannot afford any ground to the investigation agency to proceed against the petitioner further. The allegations when stand on a common platform where in one of such cases he was bailed out the objection to anticipatory bail founded on self same allegations is a misnomer.

(2.) To snuff out the challenge, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted with reference to the allegations that the boot is on the other leg. Looking to the anatomy of the prima facte evidence on record, the amount reaches the fringe of over 10 crores of rupees. The cheques were allowed to be encashed in favour of a payee having no account with the Bank. It is also glaring to find prima facte that cheques were issued in the name of fictitious persons who encashed the cheques shortly after their deposits. It is really preposterous and the situation becomes prima facie inconceivable as it is extraneous to Banking laws having not only a reflection on the public exchequer but also on the credibility the Bank. On looking to the case clocket or the case diary, a fraud has been perpetrated on the Foreign Exchange by the petitioner and others. We are at a loss to find the deceptive action of petitioner.

(3.) The offence perpetrated by the petitioner alongwith a body of individuals prima facie discloses the well calculated move to engulf the amount contrary to law. The offence since committed by a public servant by abuse of his official position in discharge of official duties does not foster any claim for anticipatory bail. It is a formidable hurdle in the wav of the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.