Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Yash Pal Bourney today rejected the bail application of Hilal Rather son of Ex- Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather who was in custody Anti corruption Bureau Jammu in a Bank Fraud Case of Paradise Avenue Township Project.
According to ACB that instant case came to be registered on the basis of recommendations of the joint surprise check conducted vide No. 11/2019 dated 09.06.2019 into the allegations of financial irregularities by the officers and officials of J&K Bank in sanctioning of loan of Rs. 177.68 Crore to the partnership firm of applicant, M/S Paradise Avenue Ltd. for setting up a residential township complex at Narwal, Jammu in a phased manner. That during investigation it has been revealed that as per the credit policy of the bank, the maximum exposure limit to a partnership concern with accounts rating 1 and 2 was Rs. 40 Crore but applicant, a novice in the construction of such a mega township project, managed a loan of Rs. 177.68 Crore. That accused/applicant had already a defaulter with the State Financial Corporation in his capacity as Director of Simula Software Solutions for which he had applied for and availed the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and as such, was not eligible for exposure beyond Rs. 40 Crore which is granted only in exceptional cases with borrowers having a good track record with the bank. That it was further revealed that borrowers were not owning any land much less of 4.2 acres as was mentioned in the sanction note dated 30.01.2012 of the Corporate Headquarter of the J&K Bank and land for the project was purchased afterwards by utilizing a part of the loan money and even as on date the lien was marked only with respect to 31 kanals and 08 marlas of land. It is further alleged that as per the ESCROW AGREEMENT between the bank and the borrowing firm dated 10.09.2012, the borrower was to open an escrow/current account with the same branch of the bank for receiving/depositing the receivables/sale proceeds of flats and pent houses, club house, swimming pool etc. However, during the course of investigation, it was found that applicant, with an intention to cheat the bank, had violated the said agreement by opening a second escrow account stealthily with HDFC Bank Branch Bahu Fort, Jammu in which he had been accepting the receivables/sale proceeds of flats and pent houses etc. depriving thereby the bank of its money and had used that amount to make payments to the land owners, besides, utilization of a part to acquire other movable and immovable assets, paying salaries to the employees of another firm M/S Simula Software Solutions, purchasing other luxury items as well as on foreign trips, taking Simula Cricket Team to Dubai/Sharja thrice for playing T-20 tournament and sponsoring of Kapil Sharma and Sunidhi Chouhan Shows etc. In this way, the funds received in the escrow account, which were collateral security for the term loans have been allowed to be diverted by the corporate headquarters of the bank and the party was further given the bank guarantee facility of Rs. 8.0 Crore and TOD facility of Rs. 5.0 Crore. Consequently, the project work suffered and remains incomplete and the loan accounts became NPA w. e. f. 31.12.2017, however, the auditor with the bank put a back date of NPA from 01.11.2015. That Applicant after turning of the four loan accounts to NPA, availed the facility of one time settlement which was granted readily and the loan was settled for Rs. 130 Crore as against Rs. 177 Crore and after settlement, applicant issued a cheque of Rs. 40 Crore but that also got bounced for lack of funds in his account. That applicant did not co-operate and has been giving evasive replies during the course of his questioning even after his arrest. As such, his release on bail is opposed seriously for the reasons that it would seriously prejudice the investigations and would also give him an opportunity to intimidate the crucial witnesses as well as to cause destruction of the evidence etc.
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu YP Bourney after hearing Adv Pranav Kohli appearing for applicant whereas APP Himanshu Parkash for the ACB observed that the accusations against the applicant that he managed the sanction of four terms loans with ease in quick succession for the project M/S Paradise Avenue Ltd. Bhatindi, Jammu beyond the maximum exposure limit allowable to a partnership concern is if the administration of the bank was there only to assist him in securing the loan and then flouted the terms of the agreement with impunity by opening a second escrow account of his choice with HDFC Bank Branch Office, Bahu Plaza, Jammu and then went on to utilize the deposits received therein from the customers, who paid for the purchasing of the flats or booking amount. Further, without paying even a single instalment for the repayment of the loans barring some adjustments of the interest in part from the escrow account against the interest on loan that accrued during the moratorium period which otherwise was part of the loan sanctioned. Further, he was dolled to the concession of one-time settlement scheme without recovering anything at foregoing the whopping amount of about Rs. 47.60 crore but even thereafter the cheque of Rs. 40 crore issued by the applicant for part payment of the settled amount under OTS was returned unpaid for lack of funds in his account. All these factors when view together clearly reflect that applicant got concessions after concessions for reasons obviously other than his past conduct and experience in the field and also financial capabilities being already a defaulter with the bank/State Financial Corporation. So, the accusations against the applicant are well founded. And the offences are grave having impact upon the financial health of the bank, besides, the interest of the other customers with the bank being directly under its sweep who are made to line up in long queues seeking just a few lacs of financial assistance and then squeezed for every default, whether intentional or unintentional on their part. The investigation is at initial stage and applicant is required by the investigating agency for further interrogation /questioning since he stands hospitalized shortly after his arrest and continues under the treatment and care of the doctors till date who need to review and reassess his fitness at regular intervals so that very object of the investigation is not frustrated. So, releasing the applicant on bail at this stage would definitely jeopardise the interest of the just, fair and impartial investigation into the matter. The release of applicant on bail at this stage would certainly be against the interest of free fair and complete investigation. His very presence outside would be an open intimidation to the witnesses and will go in long way to deter them from coming forward to depose against him on account of his socio-political clout and influence as is apparent from the record. Lastly, it would also be against the interest of the bank as well as society at large to release the applicant at this stage. With these observations Court rejected bail application. JNF