VINOD PALAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard & perused the case diary and other relevant record. Succinctly stated the allegations against the petitioners company, which is being run under the name and style of M/s. Accurate Pipes and Plastic Private Ltd;, is that the said Co. was availing various credit facilities from State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch and Agricultural Development Branch, Badgaon, Udaipur and that the basic raw material, which is being used by the Company for their production activity, is P.V.C. resin, which is procured through imports. The stock of P.V.C. resin so imported was being stored in the various custom bounded Warehouses and one of those being Pothampura, Indore. The stocks were under the State Bank of Indias specific lien and it was so noted with the Warehouses, Authorities. The stock of P. V.C. resin was to be released only against specific authorisation in writing from the S.B.I. It is alleged that on 8th Mare, 1991, the said Company through its Directors in conspiracy with bank officials withdrew one hundred M.T. of P.V.C. resin on the basis of a letter dated4.3.1991 alleged to have been issued by the A.D.B. Badgaon Branch without depositing the required amount of Rs. thirty five lakhs and thereby defrauded the said bank. A case has been registered by the S.P. C.B.I/S.P.E. Jodhpur on 9.6.1993 and the matter is under investigation. The contention of Mr. Garg is that the S.B.I filed a suit against the above mentioned Company and its Directors in the Court of the learned District Judge, Udaipur on 27.4.1991 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners & the Company from withdrawing any raw material or finished goods from the Bounded Warehouses and their factory without specific authorisation of the Bank and that in the said suit on 14.5.1991, a compromise decree was drawn. However, the learned District Judge stayed the execution of the operation of the compromise decree by his order dated 19.2.1992 and the matter is under subjudice wherein the genuineness of the impugned documentdt.4.3.1991 is to be decided. Thereafter, the S.B.I has filed another suit on 11.5.1992 against the petitioners and their Company for getting the goods attached. The contention of Mr. Garg is that the matter is of civil nature; that nothing has to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, who are willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioners should be released on anticipatory bail.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Dave, counsel for C.B.I., has vehemently opposed this bail petition and asserted that the petitioners hatched a conspiracy with the bank officials and in order to cheat and defraud the bank, forged the letter dt. 4.3.1991 and without paying any amount as against the price of the P.V.C. resin, withdraw 100 M.T. of the raw material worth Rs. thirty five lakhs. The subject matter of the civil suit filed by the S.B.I. is different than the controversy involved in this criminal case, where even the bank officials are alleged to have conspired against the interest of the Bank facilitating the petitioners to withdraw the stock of 100 M.T. of P.V.C. resin.

(3.) In my considered opinion keeping in view the colossal magnitude of the amount involved and the allegations detailed in the F.I.R. as also the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, there do not exist valid and sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners because that would frustrate the effective investigation in this case. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, I dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.