IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2631 of 2016 Shiv Dutt Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Allahabad Bank, through its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Deoghar ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C. For the Allahabad Bank: Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate. --------- Reserved On :
12. 12/2017 Pronounced On :
14. 12/2017 1. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. No. 01(A) of 2013-EOW-R, registered under Sections 120B / 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Prakash Chandra Garnayak, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank, Deoghar addressed to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Economic Offence Wing dated 25.04.2013 alleging that the informant is duly authorized by the bank to file this complaint pertaining to the fraud committed by diversion / siphoning of Bank's funds during disbursement / utilization of credit facilities through Deoghar branch in favour of M/s Maa Lalita Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. at the behest of and for the benefit of Shiv Dutt Sharma and Sabina Kumari, both Directors of M/s Maa Lalita Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., resulting in liability of Rs. 16,44,49,466/- to the bank exclusive of interest. It is further alleged that during departmental investigation, it revealed that Shiv Dutt Sharma and Sabina Kumari through their company M/s Maa Lalita Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. have got sanctioned two loan accounts to the tune of Rs. 1900 lac and later on fraudulently diverted / siphoned the sanctioned funds earmarked for the purchase of various plant & machineries, medical equipments, other articles. The outstanding balance as on date of declaration of fraud i.e. 21.03.2011, was Rs. 16,44,49,466.00 in two loan accounts of M/s Maa Lalita Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. in -2- aggregate. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the instant case was instituted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the CBI and learned counsel for the Allahabad Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of false and concocted story. After investigation, final form has been submitted against the petitioner and co- accused Sabina Kumari and Mahendra Choudhary under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the I.P.C., exonerating the bank officials, namely Kamlesh Chandra Mishra, Babulal Saha, Rajendra Kumar Byhojal and Deepak Kumar Jha.
4. It appears that bail was filed on 11.07.2016. Thereafter, learned counsel for the CBI was directed to take instruction and the matter was listed on 16.09.2017. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on para-24 (Annexure-4) of the bail application and submitted that petitioner has entered into compromise with the Bank and it was agreed that total amount of Rs. 29,50,00,000/- is to be paid, detailed description is given in the compromise petition, according to terms whereby Rs. 1 crore was to be paid as down payment. Further, Rs. 28.50 crore was to be paid by 31.03.2012. Thereafter, on 03.05.2012, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has passed certain orders which are contained in page-157. Further, on 27.02.2013, another order was passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for re-structuring of the loan and only on 06.02.2015, with the consent of the parties, applicant – Bank was ready to accept the entire loan amount after re-scheduling and defendants are willing to pay Rs. 19,37,00,000/- including uncharged interest in full and final settlement towards total dues and first installment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was to commence from 30.04.2017. So, in view of the submissions, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Deoghar was added as opposite party no. 2 and Smt. A.R. Choudhary, appeared on behalf of the Bank and sought time to take instructions. -3- 5. The matter was adjourned from time to time and was listed on 14.07.2017 and on that date, supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 34,00,000/- to the Allahabad Bank. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time.
6. Counter affidavit dated 28.07.2017 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 – Allahabad Bank to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 14.07.2017. In para-7 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, it has been stated that as per the schedule of repayment as proposed by the petitioner vide letter for revival of compromise dated 20.01.2015, an amount of Rs. 11.20 crores was to be deposited by the petitioner till the month of July, 2017 and the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 4.70 crores till today, pursuant to approval letter dated 22.01.2015 and accordingly now the petitioner has to deposit further Rs. 6.50 crores in the month of July, 2017 in order to meet the commitment made in the letter dated 20.01.2015. Further, it reveals that petitioner has given three cheques amounting to Rs. 1,76,00,000/- to the Bank and learned counsel for the Bank was directed to take instruction as to whether, these cheques have been honoured or not.
7. On 16.11.2017 and 20.11.2017, adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that he has arranged the money and he will deposit Rs. 36,00,000/- (+) Rs. 44,00,000/-, total Rs. 80,00,000/- latest by 12.12.2017. The case was adjourned for 12.12.2017 with cost of Rs. 11,000/- to be deposited before the Secretary / President, Jharkhand High Court Advocates' Clerk Association within one week.
8. On 12.12.2017, a fresh I.A. has been filed without number and the office has been directed to make diary entry and to give number to the I.A. and to tag it with the record. In the I.A., prayer has been made for modification / extension of time. It has been stated in para-4 that he will receive Rs. 1,20,00,000 from the Civil Surgeon, Godda and thereafter, petitioner will deposit Rs. 80,00,000/- as directed vide order dated 20.11.2017. Letters of Civil Surgeon, Godda dated 09.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 are annexed at page-12 and 13. -4- 9. Learned counsel for the Bank and CBI opposed the prayer for bail.
10. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, but he failed to comply with the directions of this Court. The matter was filed on 11.07.2016 and it is lingering till date.
11. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/