Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently granted interim protection from arrest to Chandrakant Patel, 64, director of Pushpak Bullions, in an alleged fraud case concerning Union Bank of India registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last November.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, on July 4, observed that this is a “fit case to grant interim protection” and directed his release, in case of arrest, on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs30,000.
Patel had approached the HC after the sessions court rejected his plea in February this year.
Sessions court had rejected the plea
The sessions court had reasoned that the gravity of the offences are serious. The sessions court judge further said Patel will not be available for custodial investigation if it gives relief and this will affect the interest of the case. At this early stage his plea deserves to be rejected, it added.
As per the CBI’s FIR, the company through its two directors had got credit facilities of Rs 140 crore sanctioned from the Union Bank of India and Bank of India. The accused had allegedly submitted forged financial statements and siphoned off money which caused a loss of Rs 83 crore to the two banks.
Patel’s advocates – Pankaj Jain and Tejashree Kamble – argued that the bank had lodged the complaint on December 3, 2018. However, on September 1, 2020, the CBI, ACB, informed the bank that it had no mandate to investigate the allegations since no known or unknown bank official was named in the complaint. The agency asked the bank to file a fresh complaint by naming a known or unknown bank official/s and also called for fresh forensic audit by another auditor to spell out the modus operandi employed in the alleged fraud and the trail of fund diversion, and also spell out the role of directors, argued the advocates.
Next hearing on July 25
The bank accordingly filed a fresh complaint in October 2020, but without a fresh forensic audit, contended the advocates.
Hiten Venegaonkar, special prosecutor for the CBI, sought time to show the complaint dated December 3, 2018, and to seek instructions as regards delay in lodging the FIR.
“The alleged fraud was committed some time in the year 2016. The 2nd complaint was lodged on October 21, 2020 and the FIR has been registered on November 25, 2022 i.e., almost two years since the date of the complaint,” the court noted.
The HC has kept the plea for hearing on July 25.
.png)
