1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 3300 of 2016 Vivek Pratap Singh …… Petitioner Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, S.C C.A.V on: 06/11/2017 Pronounced on: 18/11/2017 1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 08(S) of 2014EOWR for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging therein that: (i.) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi has given loan to M/s Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd, located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh. (ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, and Sri Birendra Kumar and Smt. Smt. Renuka Singh and its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Ranchi (SME Branch, Ranchi). Subsequently, at the request of the borrower, the account was transferrd to SME Branch, Bokaro as such the present branch i.e. SME Bokaro has filed the complaint in this regard. (iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named unit on 20.08.2005 but subsequently, declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 7.99 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stresses Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures. (iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been 2 declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under: Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd—Present outstanding Rs. 7.99 crores. Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession notice under section 13(4) was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 94 of 2012. (v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/201213 dated 07.03.2013 that few properties of M/s Reunuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd located near Dental College, Demotand, District Hazaribagh mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 4221 dated 07.05.2009 was found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Renuka Polysacks Co. as under; M/s Renuka Polysacks Pvt Ltd: The property of this unit was mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 4221 dated 07.05.2009 which represent fake property as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and according to his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand of 433 A.P. Colony Gay, the legal 3 opinion for the same was given by Sri Pandey Ratneshwari Prasad of 146, A.P. Colony, Gaya, Sri Tarkeshwar Rana. (vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating officials of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report. (vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 7.99 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it is not in dispute that the loan had been sanctioned to the company after the opinion of its advocate and the valuation done by the government approved valuer had been chosen by the bank itself. 3. It is further submitted that the dues of the bank is payable. Sooner or later as the financial condition of the company will improve, the dues shall be paid by the petitioner or the bank can recover it through various properties of the petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is an honest and sincere businessman. Reunka Group of companies has altogether 5 companies namely; (I) Renuka Polysacks Pvt. Ltd (ii) Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd (iv) Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd (v) Balaji Food and Masala Co. It has been submitted that Renuka Group of Companies has five companies altogether is testamentary of the fact that the petitioner is sincere businessman and not a criminal/offender. With regard to the allegation 4 regarding the alleged property being fake, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wanted to purchase land and had started searching for that. In course of such search the petitioner came in contact with Mr. Devendra Prajapati, an advocate by profession he used to deal in land sale and purchase. The said Devendra Prajapati, advocate, shown papers of land and the petitioner being satisfied purchased lands by terms of registered sale deeds. After each registration of sale deed, the said Devendra Prajapati used to keep the sale deed and after completion of mutation and issuance of rent receipts used to return the sale deeds alongwith correction slips and rent receipts meaning thereby the land was made available by Devendra Prajapati who did the entire transaction, got the sale deed registered, he got the mutation done and he got the rent receipt issued. 4. Further, it has been submitted that the forgery committed by said Devendra Prajapati and his associates, the petitioner filed complaint Case being C.C. Nos. 2279, 2280 & 2281 of 2014 respectively. The petitioner spent his hard earned money in purchasing the land and now facing the allegation that the sale deed is fake. Such being the situation, the petitioner himself is a victim and not an offender. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation the petitioner has fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when required and his statement has been recorded. Further, it has been submitted that police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C and under section 12 & 13 (2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and cognizance has been taken under the same sections, trial will take some time. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. A supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2016 has been filed brining on record the cognizance order passed by the learned court below vide order 5 dated 17.05.2016 under which cognizance has been taken under sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code & under sections 12 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C Act, 1988.
6. On 30.08.2017, (A.B.A. No.3295 of 2016) this court took note that out of total amount from different transactions, which was sanctioned to the petitioner, as it was apparent from statement of one Prabir Kumar Basu recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C during course of investigation, which comes to Rs. 35 crores whether the petitioner is in position to pay Rs. 20 crores or not, if this court inclines to admit him on bail.
7. A supplementary affidavit dated 30.10.2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in connected bail application (A.B.A. No.3295 of 2016) indicating that remaining amount he wants to liquidate. In para 4 a detailed description of property has been given. Total valuation of lands was shown as 20.5 crores but no concrete attrances was made on behalf of the petitioner to pay the amount.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit. Referring to various paras of the counteraffidavit learned standing cousnel for the C.B.I has submitted that the petitioner Shri Vivek Pratap Singh being sole beneficiary, created/got forged sale deeds, mutation correction slips, land rent receipts, balance sheets etc and in connivance with bank officials, used the same as genuine for avialing the subject loan. He share the booty with accused bank officials namely Shri Murari Prasad Baranwal and Shri Subrato Sengupta as illegal gratification/quidproquo. The petitioner made forged signature of his mother Smt. Renuka Singh who was one of the guarantors. 9. Investigation reveals that the petitioner in connivance with Shri Dinesh Chand, Shri Pande Ratneshwari Prasad along accused bank officials, 6 obtained suitable valuation reports as well as title investigation reprots for the purpose.
10. Investigation reveals that at the time of incorporation of M/s Renuka Pvt. Ltd. two persons namely, Shri Vivek Pratap and Smt. Renuka Singh were appointed as director of the company. Thereafter, Shri Birendra Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar Singh were also made director of the company. It has been ascertained during investigation that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh has singed the appointment as well as resignation letter on behalf of remaining directors as per his convenience. In fact this company was one man show, which has been solely handled by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. No overt act on the part of remaining other directors could be found during investigation. M/s Renuka Ply Industries, Hupad, Demotand, Hazarbiagh came into existence on 22nd July, 2002 as a partnership firm. Shri Vivek Pratap Singh and Smt. Renuka Singh were the two partners of this firm. This firm was engaged for production of Synthetic Woven Bags used in packaging of cement , fertilizer and flour. It has been in commercial production since July, 2004. The loan proposal was marketed by Shri Murari Prasad Baranwal and his team. The proposal was for taking over of existing loan from Allahabad Bank. Hazarbagh with increased finance by way of r esh term loan and increased cash credit limit. The proposal consists as under: (a) Takeover of existing term loan of Rs. 200 lacs from Allahabad Bank, Ranchi. (b) Takeover of existing cash credit limit of Rs. 80 lacs from Allahabad Bank, Ranchi. (c) Sanction of fresh term loan of Rs. 150 lacs. (d) Sanction of additional proposal was processed and appraised by the C.P.C. S.B.I, LHO, Patna headed by Shri Pulak Kumar Sinha, AGM as Team Leader. Shri P.L Rai, Chief Manager, (Credit) and Shri Navin Kumar, Credit Analyst. The loan proposal was sanctioned by the Circle Credit CommitteeII on 20.08.2005 vie 7 Agenda item No. 11/200506/01. Sanction was accorded with observation of sanctioning authority marketing aspect to be once again verified. The sanctioned term included creation of charge over company's assets, properties of the borrowers and guarantors which were as under; Primary SecurityFirst charge by way of mortgage land building of factory alongwith hypothecation charge over plant & machinery purchased out of bank finance. Apart from above primary security, the following collateral securities were also mortgaged with the bank; (a) Sale deed no. 11626 dated 30.07.2002 in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh (b) Khata No. 122, 138, 123 & 135 (c) Plot No. 1491, 1493, 1497 & 1492 (d) Total area 1.58 acre (e) Mutation Case No. 116/200203 dated 08.01.2003 (f) Rent receipt B/41 No. 5653818 dated 04.02.2011 Investigation established that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh had ownership of only 1.21 acre land as against mortgage of 1.58 acre of land. Certified copy of Khatian, Mutation as well as RegisterII alongwith chain of ownership in respect of above plots and Khata have been obtained which proves this fact. The mutation order (correction slip) as well s rent receipt submitted by Shri Vivek Pratp Singh is found to be forged and fabricated. Sale Deed No. 7854 dated 02.09.1970 of Mauza Auradih Baida, Taluka Gurua, Serghati, Gaya in the name of Smt. Renuka Singh, Tauzi No. 42, 25, 22, 1, 41, 13, 45, 43, 46, Area 16.28 acre. Investigation further reveals that Sale Deed No. 4221 dated 07.05.2009 has been shown executed between Shri Gandhaori Saw, S/o late Sukhlal Saw, resident of village Hupad, P.S. Muffasil, DistrictHazaribagh and Shri Vivek Pratap Singh in the office of District SubRegistrate, Hazaribagh vide 8 this sale deed, said so called seller Shri Gandhori Saw has shown selling of 5.e8 acres lands in MauzaHupad, ParganaChampa, Demotand, P.S. No. 254, District hazaribagh vide khata no. 118, plot no. 1508 for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/. Shri Devnandan Prajapati @ Devendra Kumar happens to be identifier/witness. Investigation further reveals that real name of said land seller Shri Gandhori Saw is Shri Raj Kumar Modi, son of Shri Tiko Modi, resident of village Baherabad Modi Toal, P.O. Baraka Goan, P.S. Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh. Invesdtigation further established that on the instance of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Shri Devnandan Prjapati @ Devendra Kumar managed the presence of Shri Raj Kumar Modi and got executed the government land in favour of said Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. Residential Property of Vivek Pratap Singh: (a) Flat No. 403.4th Floor, Maa Durga Apartment, Cantonment, Hazaribagh (Floor area 1039.12 Sq. ft, Plot No. 628 & 629) in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. Investigation further established that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh was having ownership of Flat No. 403 as well as undivided portion of 381 Sq. ft lands. However, Shri Vivek Pratap Singh has claimed ownership of total land,. On which the Maa Durga Apartment is situated and also mortgaged the same. Certified copy of Khatian, Mutation as ell as registerII in respedct of above plot and khata have been obtained, which proves this fact. The mutation order (correction slip) as well as rent receipt submitted by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh is found to be forged and fabricated. Shri Devnandan Prajapati disclosed in his statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C that all the blank forged correction slips and rent receipts were managed from Md. Yusup on the instance of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. After obtaining such blank correction slips and rent receipts from Md. Yusup. It has been prepared and singed by Srhi Shankar Dayal Roy. Shri Devnandan Prajapati confirmed that all the forged correction slips and rent receipts have been prepared and signed by Shri Shankar Dayal Roy in his 9 immediate presence. Specimen handwriting and signature of Shri Shankar Dayal Roy together with questioned handwriting and signature has since been forwarded to the CFSL/GEQD for opinion. However, the opinion is awaited. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
11. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I, material collected by the C.B.I, admittedly petitionerVivek Pratap Singh has Renuka Group of Company having five subsidiary companies, on the basis of forged saledeeds of the lands which was furnished as collateral securities, he has taken huge amount of loan from the Bank and cash credit facilities for which five cases have been instituted against this petitioner being, (i)CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 12(S) of 2014 EOWR (ii) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 10(S) of 2014EOWR (iii) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 08(S) of 2014EOWR (iv) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 0932014S0009, (v) CBI/EOW/Ranchi P.S. Case No. R.C. 0932014S0011 in which final form has been submitted against this petitioner and the petitioner being principal beneficiary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/