Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Nitin Kumar Gaur @ Nitin Gaur v. C.b.i

Nitin Kumar Gaur @ Nitin Gaur v. C.b.i

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6649 of 2023 | 13-02-2023

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as MR. Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, representing the respondent - CBI, and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.06 of 2022, under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") RC2202018E0010,Dated 27.12.2018, Police Station EO/IV/C.B.I./New Delhi.

3. M/s JR Foods through its Proprietor, Mr. Nikhil Gaur, brother of the accused-applicant, had been dealing with Union Bank of India, Mid-corporate, Branch, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad since 2017; the said firm, through its Proprietor, Mr. Nikhil Gaur along with guarantor, Mr. Sudesh Gaur, mother of the accused-applicant, had applied for cash credit limit of Rs.1500 lakhs on 15.02.2017; on their request, the Bank had sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 1500 Lakhs on 22.03.2017. The Proprietor and the accused-applicant and other accused had intention from very beginning to defraud the Bank and, therefore, they submitted forged financial documents to get the said cash credit limit sanctioned in their favour; within a period of one year from the date of sanctioning of the cash credit limit, Rs. 1500 Lakhs was withdrawn and the said firm closed down its business and sold the hypothecated stock without depositing the sale proceeds to the loan account.

4. The investigation carried out would reveal that the said amount was channelized/syphoned of without using the same for the business purpose; the entire amount of Rs. 1500 Lakh was syphoned of by brother of the accused-applicant in criminal conspiracy with the present accused-applicant, being the Director of M/s Darshan Tradexim Private Limited, through Mr. Karandeep Singh, Proprietor M/s Kayaan Overseas, Mr. Mohd. Yunus Khan and Mr. Harish. As per record, a total amount of Rs. 100 Lakh was transferred to M/s As Enterprises, Rs. 176 Lakh was transferred to M/s Annapurna Trading, Rs. 638 Lakh was transferred to M/s Darshan Tradexim Private Limited and Rs 528 Lakh was transferred to M/s Kayaan overseas.

5. All the aforesaid money was transferred without any genuine business transactions. The present accused-applicant is one of the Directors of M/s Darshan Tradexim Private Limited. This is not the first instance where the accused-applicant had cheated the Bank, the CBI in investigation has found out that the accusedapplicant had availed cash credit limit of Rs. 20 Crores in the past on the basis of forged and fake documents and in that case also charge-sheet had been filed against him. Besides, these two cases, there is a 3rd cases (Crime/FIR No.015 of 2021) regarding financial fraud having been committed by him in which he has been enlarged on bail.

6. Considering the facts that the accused-applicant along with coaccused (his brother), had cheated the Bank of several crores of rupees on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, this Court does not deem it appropriate inasmuch as the case of financial fraud committed stands alone and, in case of bail in such case, the Court should take a stern view. The banking system is back-bone of financial set up of the economy. If financial fraud is committed by syphoning of the bank money, certainly the case has to be dealt with sternly and, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

7. REJECTED.

Advocate List
  • Vijit Saxena

  • Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/949
Head Note

A. Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 14 — Bail — Accused-applicant seeking bail in FIR No.06 of 2022, under Ss.120B r/w Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act — Investigation revealed that entire amount of Rs.1500 Lakh was syphoned of by brother of accused-applicant in criminal conspiracy with present accused-applicant, being Director of M/s Darshan Tradexim Private Limited, through M/s Kayaan Overseas, M/s Mohd. Yunus Khan and M/s Harish — All the aforesaid money was transferred without any genuine business transactions — Accused-applicant had availed cash credit limit of Rs.20 Crores in the past on the basis of forged and fake documents and in that case also charge-sheet had been filed against him — Besides, there is a 3rd cases (Crime/FIR No.015 of 2021) regarding financial fraud having been committed by him in which he has been enlarged on bail — Held, banking system is back-bone of financial set up of the economy — If financial fraud is committed by syphoning of bank money, certainly the case has to be dealt with sternly — Bail rejected — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Ss.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439