A.Shafiq Ahmed v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.16892 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) r/w 13(1)(d) & and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As Amended in 2018) in crime No.RC.No.032 2020 A 0006 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai, the respondent registered FIR for the allegations that the petitioner and other accused persons had committed fraud, forgery and cheating in the Term Deposits (Fixed Deposits) standing in the name of M/s.Chennai Port Trust with Koyambedu Branch, Indian Bank, Chennai to the tune of Rs.100,57,50,000/-. The accused persons also committed the other offences such as criminal conspiracy, impersonation, fabrication of false documents, submission of forged documents, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, fraudulent transaction, etc., thereby causing a wrongful loss of public money to an extent of Rs.45,40,65,000/- and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves by transferring/withdrawing the said amount to various accounts.

2.1. Further, all the accused persons have created fixed deposits in the name of M/s.Chennai Port Trust and fraudulently preclosed the fixed deposits and the amounts were deposited in the fake account of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund which was created by the accused persons. From the said accounts, money was fraudulently transferred to several accounts and withdrawn as cash and collected by the accused persons. The first accused has approached the other accused persons for getting surplus funds from any Government Organisation for creating fixed deposits in any national bank with intention to swindle the said investments. In pursuant to the same, the first accused approached the third accused/Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch by furnishing broad resolution copies for the investment of Rs.300 crores.

2.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the first accused who acted as kingpin of this crime got information about the deposits of surplus funds of Chennai Port Trust through A26 who was the Assistant Superintendent, Bill Section, Finance Department of Chennai Port Trust. All the accused persons conspired together and created bogus documents such as board resolutation, authorization letter in the name of Chennai Port Trust along with the forged employee ID card in respect of the fourth accused with

the individual pan card, aadhar card of the fourth accused and GST registration certificate of Chennai Port Trust as KYC for the purpose of opening the current account purportedly in the name of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund by A4 by impersonating himself as Deputy Director, Finance Department of Chennai Port Trust. It was opened for the purpose of parking the investment amount received from Chennai Port Trust before creating fixed deposit and also to deposit the amount received from preclosure of fixed deposit receipts. From the said account, money was further fraudulently transferred to various accounts and withdrawn the amount in cash. 2.3.

Modus apprehendi of the accused persons are that they approached Chennai Port Trust officials for getting surplus funds of Chennai Port Trust in the form of fixed deposits and in that process in criminal conspiration with the bank officials, bank was made to quote higher rate of interest that the maximum permissible limit so as to ensure that the surplus fund was deposited in the Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch as fixed deposit for a period of one year. Thus, the Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch has obtained Rs.100,57,50,000/- from Chennai Port Trust through the account opened by the accused persons in the name of Chennai Port Trust.

2.4. Further, the Bank Manager who is arrayed as A3 has created fixed deposits with the lesser interest rate than the quoted rate and handed over the fixed deposit receipts to the accused persons rather than delivering the same to the Chennai Port Trust directly. The accused persons created fake deposit receipts with the quoted interest rate and handed over the same to the Chennai Port Trust. The accused persons had possessed original fixed deposit receipts and the same were preclosed in conspiring with the bank officials and all the amounts were deposited in the fake current account. Thereafter it was transferred to various accounts to the first link beneficiaries known to the accused persons. The accused A2, A5, A6 had withdrawn Rs.15.25 crores as cash. Other amounts were transferred and withdrawn by the first link beneficiaries at various places by the other accused persons. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody as early as on 24.02.2022. The respondent also completed investigation and filed final report. He further submitted that except A2, others are only name lenders and they acted as commission agent. Whatever the amount received by them through their account which were duly repaid to A1. Therefore, they had no conspiracy with the first accused who cheated the Chennai Port Trust. They had no knowledge

that the first accused opened the account in the third accused bank in the name of Chennai Port Trust and misappropriated huge sum. Whatever the amount transferred to their account, they were only on the basis of the commission and on deducting the commission, they returned back the entire amount in favour of the first accused. Therefore, there was no conspiracy by the petitioners along with the first accused. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is only an employee of the Chennai Port Trust and he has nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2022 and incarcerated for the past five months. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) submitted that as per the evidence in oral, documentary & material, it is established that the petitioner had conspired with other accused persons and created the forged FDRs & documents, which were used as genuine to swindle the amount of Rs.45,40,65,000/- from the fake current account held in the name of Chennai Port Trust - General Insurance Fund maintained with Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch. Hence on 24.05.2022 a supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner was filed for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w

13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the substantive offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 of IPC. If the petitioner released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the evidence. He further submitted that this Court already dismissed the bail petitions filed by the coaccused in Crl.OP.Nos.12611, 11344, 11779, 5720, 10360 & 15111 of 2022 by an order dated 13.07.2022. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases appearing for the respondent.

6. On perusal of the final report, it revealed specific overt as against each of the accused persons. All the accused persons have committed very serious offence as against the society and caused huge loss to the exchequer. All the accused persons have committed white collar crime and they conspired together and executed the crime in a well planned manner. Economic offences having deep rooted conspiracy involving huge loss to public funds needs to be viewed seriously. These offences are considered as grave offences affecting the economy of our country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to financial health of our country. The nature of accusation and severity of

punishment in case of conviction, the reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of charge as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued certain guidelines to be followed while considering the bail petitions in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another in Misc.A.No.1849 of 2021 in SLP(Crl.)No.5191 of 2021 that in respect of economic offences are concerned, the law laid down in the cases of P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791 and in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 will govern the economic offences field. In those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle.

But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment should be taken into consideration.

or refusal to grant bail lies within the descretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

8. In the case on hand, the petitioner is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. That apart, though the respondent filed final report, the investigation is still in progress. Further this Court already dismissed the earlier bail petitions filed by the co-accused and there is no change in circumstances to consider the petitioner's bail petition. Taking consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03.08.2022 rts

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts Crl.O.P.No.16892 of 2022 03.08.2022