Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed by Avinash Jain (applicant) seeking direction for grant of statutory / default bail and for his release from custody in FIR filed u/S 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered by CBI, New Delhi. Amit Sharma, J., granted bail under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The present FIR was registered based on a complaint received from S. Bavani Sankaran, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India on behalf of a consortium of six banks alleging that Arise India Ltd., a company with its directors, including the present applicant along with other unknown public servants availed credit facilities from the said consortium of banks led by the SBI and diverted the borrowed funds for purposes other than those for which they were released. The loan account of the company was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (‘ NPA‘) by the SBI on 27-02-2017 and subsequently by other banks in the consortium, with a total outstanding amount of Rs. 512.67 Crores. After a forensic audit, the account of the company was declared as a ‘ fraud‘ by the SBI on 27-05-2019.
Thus, the present FIR was registered against Arise India Ltd., Avinash Jain, Virender Mishra, Rajnish, unknown public servants, and other unknown private persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act‘) for causing wrongful loss of public money on 19-11-2020.
The issue under consideration is whether the chargesheet, filed under Section 120B read with Section 420 and 471 of the IPC and substantive offences thereof, in a case where the FIR was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act while stating that further investigation is continuing with respect to offences under the PC Act is an incomplete chargesheet?
The Court noted that the right of an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC would arise in a case where the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated period. The other circumstance giving rise to the right to default bail would be in a case where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet, within the period prescribed for offences mentioned therein and, in that process, defeats the right of the accused to statutory bail. In the present case, the charge sheet, as per Counsel of the applicant, is incomplete and therefore, the applicant is entitled to default bail as a matter of right.
Placing reliance on Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, (2021) 2 SCC 485, noted that from the records of the case that the FIR was registered on 19.11.2020 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The present applicant was arrested on 14.11.2022 under the aforesaid sections. The CBI, on 16.12.2022, sought approval from the competent authority under Section 17A of PC Act, but proceeded to file the chargesheet, before the expiry of the stipulated term of 60 days, while keeping the investigation for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act open.
Thus, the Court concluded that CBI had not completed the investigation with respect to offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, for which the applicant was arrested. Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal chargesheet with respect to the same and consequently, defeating the right of the applicant to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court granted bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC in a case registered by the CBI upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
[Avinash Jain v CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2946, decided on 18-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Pratyansh Pandey, Mr. Arun Kanwa, Ms. Namisha Jain & Mr. Rudraksh Nakra, Advocates for applicant
Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI with Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr.Prakarsh Airan and Mr. Abhishek Batra, Advocates for respondents
