'Country's Economic Health Needs Careful Adjudication': Punjab & Haryana HC Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Men Accused In Rs 48 Crore PNB Fraud

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to persons accused in a case pertaining to Rs 48 crore fraud to Punjab National Bank (PNB) in 2020.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "Given the gravity of the allegations and substantial prima facie evidence implicating the petitioners in a fraud resulting in financial losses exceeding Rs. 48 crores to the PNB and significant personal gains, the severity of the offences alleged cannot be ignored. The potential impact on the country's economic health necessitates a careful and thorough adjudication of the prayer."

The Court was hearing pre-arrest bail plea of persons accused in a fraud case under Sections 420, 406, 403, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the prosecution, co-accused M/s Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. (GAPL) secured a loan in the form of cash credit and term loan during the year 2015-2016 using stock and securities as collateral.

Another co-accused M/s Star Agri Warehousing and Collateral Management Limited ( M/s Star Agri) was appointed as the Collateral Manager for the warehoused goods, with separate stock auditors appointed for verification.

The account of GAPL was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) in 2018. During physical verification of stocks, it was discovered that the hypothecated stocks had been clandestinely disposed of by the Directors of GAPL and other co-accused, including the petitioners, in collusion with employees of M/s Star Agri, who were purportedly responsible for the custody of the stocks. 

The senior counsels for petitioners argued that the CBI had misused its powers by registering the FIR based on a complaint by PNB.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention that entitlement to bail on the grounds that the investigating agency did not seek their custodial interrogation during the investigation.

"This assertion, in the considered opinion of this Court, is fundamentally flawed when used as a basis for anticipatory bail," said the Court.

Reliance was placed on Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & another, [Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2022], wherein the Supreme Court held that "it was imperative to clarify the prevalent legal misconception regarding anticipatory bail; the necessity for custodial interrogation of the accused should not be the sole criterion for either granting or denying the anticipatory bail."

Justice Kaul also noted that "there are criminal cases pending against the petitioners involving similar allegations; furthermore this Court has also been apprised by the learned Standing counsel for CBI, in a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioner no.2 has been declared a proclaimed person."

Consequently, the Court said that it did not deem it fit to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Title: Rajveer Singh Samra and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Standing counsel for CBI.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 197

Click here to read/download the order