# Ramesh Chand Goel v. Central Bureau of Investigation - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 791 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-28 - **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chand-goel-v-central-bureau-of-investigation-43688 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Gravity and magnitude of offence-Public exchequer-Lengthy trial-'Bail is rule, jail is exception'-Applicability. (1) The applicant, implicated in serious economic offences involving alleged criminal conspiracy, forgery of Letters of Credit and fraudulent discounting of bills causing heavy financial loss to public sector banks and Government departments, is alleged to be direct beneficiary of proceeds of forged securities credited into the account of his proprietary concern. The gravity, magnitude and societal impact of the offence are significant and militates against the grant of bail. (Paras 8, 9, 12 & 13) (2) Absence of previous criminal history, medical ailments and the fact that the applicant was earlier on interim bail before submission of charge-sheet, by themselves, do not constitute sufficient grounds for release on bail in cases involving grave economic offences affecting the public exchequer.(Paras 3, 4 & 10) (3) Though the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' and the possibility of prolonged trial are relevant considerations, the same cannot override the seriousness of allegations, the nature of evidence and the extent of financial loss allegedly caused in offences having wide social ramifications. (Paras 10 & 11) Held:Paras 12-14 Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, punishment, period of detention of the applicant, amount involved and the arguments adduced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge against the accused applicant. Case Law discussed: 792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40(Para 10) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh, AIR 2015 SCW 4921 (Para 11) ## Text 4 All. Ramesh Chand Goel Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 791 34. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Criminal Misc Bail Application No.- 46367 Of 2015 Ramesh Chand Goel ... Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Siddhartha Srivastava, Lav Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: G.A, Gyan Prakash, N.I. Jafri Bail-Economic offence-Criminal conspiracy-Forgery and cheating-Letters of Credit-Offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Gravity and magnitude of offence-Public exchequer-Lengthy trial-'Bail is rule, jail is exception'-Applicability. (1) The applicant, implicated in serious economic offences involving alleged criminal conspiracy, forgery of Letters of Credit and fraudulent discounting of bills causing heavy financial loss to public sector banks and Government departments, is alleged to be direct beneficiary of proceeds of forged securities credited into the account of his proprietary concern. The gravity, magnitude and societal impact of the offence are significant and militates against the grant of bail. (Paras 8, 9, 12 & 13) (2) Absence of previous criminal history, medical ailments and the fact that the applicant was earlier on interim bail before submission of charge-sheet, by themselves, do not constitute sufficient grounds for release on bail in cases involving grave economic offences affecting the public exchequer.(Paras 3, 4 & 10) (3) Though the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' and the possibility of prolonged trial are relevant considerations, the same cannot override the seriousness of allegations, the nature of evidence and the extent of financial loss allegedly caused in offences having wide social ramifications. (Paras 10 & 11) Held:Paras 12-14 Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, punishment, period of detention of the applicant, amount involved and the arguments adduced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge against the accused applicant. Case Law discussed: 792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40(Para 10) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh, AIR 2015 SCW 4921 (Para 11) (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of this application, the applicant-Ramesh Chand Goel, who is involved in Special Case No. 3 of 2015 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015) arising out of R.C. No. 1202012A0005, (CBI vs Ram Singh Thakur & others), under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad seeks enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been in jail since 12.10.2015. He does not have any previous criminal history to his credit. He is an aged sick person. He is suffering from hypertension, diabetes, blood pressure and asthma. 4. It has also been submitted that prior to submission of charge sheet, the applicant was on interim bail. He himself surrendered before the court below. 5. It has further been submitted that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Sushila Steel and was conducting his business through Union Bank of India, whereas one Sudhir Kumar Kaura was the Director of M/s International Electron Device Ltd., who was managing the financial affairs and accounts with the Punjab National Bank. M/s International Electron Device Ltd. placed orders on M/s Sushila Steel and handed over letters of credit purporting to be issued by the Punjab National Bank, which were deposited by the applicant in his Bank. Infact the applicant himself was cheated, inasmuch as the forgery, if any, was committed by the Punjab National Bank, who issued letters of credit and further fault was of Union Bank of India, who did not verify the details from the Punjab National Bank and disbursed the amount against the supply of goods. Although it is said that no supply was actually made. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that the Union Bank of India submitted its claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow against the applicant and others, in which a claim for Rs 70,70,63,064.99/- was placed. The matter was decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, who allowed the claim of the Bank for Rs. 9,56,65,749.64/- in respect of Cash Credit Limit Account as against the applicant and others jointly and severally with cost together with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application. The Tribunal further allowed the claim of Rs. 61,13,97,315.35 in respect of Usance Bill Discounting Facility ex-party against M/s International Electron Device Ltd. and M/s Sudhir Kamar Kaura exparte jointly and severally with cost together with pendente lite and future interst @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application till the loan is fully liquidated. 4 All. Ramesh Chand Goel Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 793 7. It has further been submitted that even as per the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, as per their own version the total amount outstanding in the account of M/s Sushila Steels were only Rs. 57,70,29,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that any forgery was committed on the part of the applicant. All the collateral are joint with the CC Limit granted to Sushila Steels and Rajat Steels and the valuation of mortgaged property mortgaged with the Bank is Rs. 21,00,00,000/- and there are no chances of the applicant fleeing away, hence, he is entitled to bail. 8. Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the CBI while opposing the bail application has submitted that the applicant has entered into criminal conspiracy with Sudhir Kumar Kaura. He has fraudulently and dishonestly obtained forged amendments to LCs with fraudulent intention to cheat the Union Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Department of Service Tax and Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Rajat Goel is the son of the applicant, who in connivance with other accused submitted bills under these forged amendments in Union Bank of India for discounting and payments and thereby cheated both the Banks and the Government Departments. Forged bills submitted by the applicant under the forged amendments to LCs were accompanied by lorry receipts of existing and non existing transporters. Some of the vehicles numbers mentioned on the lorry receipts are found to be fake. The applicant along with other co-accused obtained fake acceptances for the bills, which were discounted under forged amendments and submitted in Union Bank of India. 9. It has further been submitted that the applicant had not fulfilled the sanction stipulation for enhanced limit, but the bills discounted over and above the sanctioned limit and even limit of each amendment to LC and get it discounted fradulently. The applicant along with other co-accused have forged very heavy financial loss to the public exchequer. Valuable security have been forged and the proceeds of the forged security have been credited into the account of M/s Sushila Steel, whose proprietor is the applicant. Hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40, in which it has been laid down that bail is the rule and jail is exception. It has further been held that lengthy trial which may prolong beyond maximum sentence awardable have to be kept in mind. The accused has been detained in jail for offence under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. On the other hand, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the CBI has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs Maninder Singh reported in 2015 AIR (SCW) 4921, in which it has been held that such offences are actually public wrongs or crimes committed against society and the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated at public at large, which has large social impact. 794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 12. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, punishment, period of detention of the applicant, amount involved and the arguments adduced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 14. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of framing of charge against the accused applicant. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. Writ A No.- 59185 Of 2008 Raj Kamal Sonkar ...Petitioner Versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through R.G. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Jai Prakash Rai, U.N. Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: Yashwant Verma, Ashish Mishra, Ranjan Srivastava, S.C. Petitioner an employee of High Court- joined the service as Routine Grade Assistant on 19.11.1996- promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant 1999 -thereafter was placed on probation-In 2005, he was considered for confirmation-but was not found suitable & the matter relating thereto was deferred-In 2007 a Committee constituted by the Registrar General considered the petitioner as well as other employees working on probation for their services being confirmed-petitioner service was again not found to be satisfactory and promotion was again deferred- he filed representation before the Registrar General-In 2008, the Registrar General rejected the representation holding that overall conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. SERVICE LAW - Probation & Confirmation - Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 - Rules 32 & 33 - Maximum probation - Whether deemed confirmation - Requirement of positive order of confirmation-Under Rules 32-33, although probation can be extended up to a maximum of four years, there is no concept of deemed confirmation-Confirmation requires a positive act of the Appointing Authority after satisfaction regarding three conditions : (a) work and conduct satisfactory; (b) fitness for confirmation; and (c) integrity certified- Mere expiry of the maximum period of probation does not result in automatic confirmation- Supreme Court Constitution Bench decisions in Dharam Singh, Sukhbans Singh, G.S. Ramaswamy, Akbar Ali Khan, and the Larger Bench ruling in Satya Narayan Jhavar applied. (Paras 6-17)