The Malegaon District Court (Pic: The Voice of Malegaon)
In the Rs 7.46 crore alleged loan fraud case, an Additional Sessions Court here rejected Dr Advay Hiray-Patil’s bail plea today by making certain observations. The Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge S U Baghele cited a number of reasons while turning down the accused’s bail plea. Here are a few key observations that explain why the court rejected the bail for the accused.
The first and the foremost observation was that the facts presented by the learned advocates of all parties cannot be taken up for consideration in details at this (bail) stage. “At this stage, while considering the bail application, the various facets of the factual matrix and the legal scenario need not be dealt with in details by this court.”
That, the applicant has been pressing for bail on medical grounds but nothing was brought on record to show that the jail authorities were not able to take care of the accused and his health in the way he wanted.
The court also observed that there was misuse of power on the accused’s part as he got second and third tranches of loans of Rs 2.20 crore and Rs 2.46 crore respectively sanctioned when there was no recommendation from the bank for the same. Also, the first tranche of loan of Rs 2.80 crore was sanctioned when there was a recommendation for Rs 2.35 crore only. Dr Patil was Chairman of the NDCC Bank when the loans were sanctioned back in 2013.
The court did not buy the submission that it was not the case of an economic offence and that it was only a case of non-payment of loans. The court observed that the same property, whose market value was less than the first tranche of loan sanctioned, was mortgaged for taking the other two loans. It means the accused did not intend to secure the loans with new mortgages, the court observed.
“Although, loans can be raised repeatedly, by mortgaging the same properties, the valuation thereof plays vital role to unveil the intention,” Judge Baghele observed.
The court also observed the foregoing state of affairs “unerringly prima facie point at the mala fide intention of the applicant to siphon the loan amounts, which indisputedly were comprising of public funds. It is an economic offence, whereby a huge sum of money, belonging to the public at large, has been misappropriated, by duping the informant bank…”
On submission that the applicant accused was not being treated equally at par with other entities, the court observed in such a scenario the accused can seek remedy under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The accused can approach the High Court or the Apex Court to seek a relief. However, the court observed, the said submission has got nothing to do with the current case.
