HC dismisses anticipatory bail plea of 4 accused in bank fraud case

Dismissing the bail plea, a bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, “It is not merely a case of financial dispute between the petitioners and the bank but it is a case where loans were allegedly availed on the basis of fake and fabricated documents and, therefore, considering the gravity and magnitude of the offence involved, this court does not deem it fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.”

As per police, the petitioners – Rohit, Rajesh Kumar and Gurnam Singh – are accused of taking loan on the basis of fake and fabricated documents. Another petitioner – Arshpreet Singh – is stated to be a mediator/agent who facilitated everything to not only the aforesaid accused but to the total 98 beneficiaries by providing fake and fabricated documents of KYC, ID cards, salary slips and Form-16 of the income tax department.

The complaint by SBI Regional Manager alleged that one Abhinash Kumar had applied for a personal loan of Rs 4,20,000 under Xpress Credit Scheme from SBI, Raipur Kalan Branch, Chandigarh, in January 2021. The loan was sanctioned and it was availed of by Abhinash Kumar. There were 97 other people who had also applied for a similar loan under the scheme from the same SBI branch and all of them submitted their supporting documents. But during the scrutiny of these 98 accounts and loan documents, it was found that the papers (like ID cards, salary slips, Form-16) submitted were fake and fabricated. These accused persons had shown themselves as employees of PGIMER, Panjab University, Chandigarh, or Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. In this way, an amount of Rs 2,76,72,923 is outstanding against the aforesaid 98 loan account holders.

Counsel for Rohit, Rajesh Kumar and Gurnam Singh submitted that so far as these three petitioners are concerned, they had applied for the loan in a bona fide manner. They had availed of the loan facility as they were outsourced employees of one BVG India Limited Company and the documents furnished to the bank were not fabricated ones, it was submitted.

Counsel for Arshpreet Singh submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case because neither he is a beneficiary of the loan, nor has he applied for it.

Abhinav Gupta appeared on behalf of UT, Chandigarh. Opposing the anticipatory bail, he argued that it is a case where a large-scale fraud and cheating have been committed by the petitioners. He submitted that the loanees were outsourced employees of BVG India Limited Company, and all the petitioners and the other similarly situated co-accused with the connivance of Arshpreet Singh and one more co-accused, namely Rajeev have conspired with each other for committing this fraud by taking loans on the basis of fake and fabricated documents.

The bench also said the argument raised by the state counsel that for the purpose of elicitation of truth and to ascertain the modus operandi adopted in the present large-scale fraud and to ascertain as to how the vital documents were procured, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required carries weight and cannot be ignored.