Deepak Devidas More vs. Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal And Another

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the material on record, including the sale deeds of properties to an entity represented by the applicant's wife shortly after a refund, gave rise to a prima facie inference that the transaction was structured for personal benefit, suggesting diversion of funds. The Court noted that instead of utilizing the loan for modernization, the funds were prima facie diverted for personal gains. The acquisition of property in the name of a private entity represented by the applicant's wife was considered a relevant circumstance pointing towards such intent. The Court also took into account the applicant's history of multiple pending criminal cases, including those for cheating, and the complex nature of the financial transactions involved. Citing Supreme Court judgments on economic offences, the Court emphasized that such offences constitute a class apart and require a different approach in bail matters due to their serious repercussions on the country's economic fabric. The Court concluded that a thorough investigation, potentially requiring custodial interrogation, was necessary and that there was a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the application was not considered fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicant, Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 63 of 2026, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, on behalf of Sachin Ghayal Sugar Private Limited (SGSPL), obtained a loan of ₹30 crores from Buldhana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited by mortgaging the sugar factory's properties. The stated purpose was to repay dues to Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited under a one-time settlement (OTS) and for modernization. While ₹13.17 crores were used for the OTS, the remaining amount was credited to SGSPL and subsequently transferred to various accounts. The audit report indicated a lack of supporting material for modernization expenses and suggested diversion of funds to unrelated entities. The applicant contended that a collaboration agreement permitted mortgaging properties for loans and that modernization was undertaken, increasing the factory's capacity. He also submitted GST invoices to substantiate modernization expenditure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of financial irregularities and diversion of loan funds, considering the nature of economic offences? (Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and principles related to economic offences). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the loan was obtained with prior approvals and under a valid collaboration agreement, which allowed mortgaging of properties. He asserted that the loan proceeds were utilized for the stated purposes of OTS and modernization, providing documentation like GST invoices and detailing the modernization efforts that increased the sugar factory's capacity. He also highlighted that the OTS resulted in a loan waiver beneficial to the sugar factory. Revenue/State's Arguments: The prosecution contended that the applicant, through false and misleading documents and suppression of facts, dishonestly diverted and misappropriated approximately ₹16,00,62,000/-. They presented evidence suggesting the funds were not utilized for modernization as claimed, citing a lack of supporting documents like estimates, vouchers, and work orders. The prosecution also pointed to the subsequent sale of properties to an entity represented by the applicant's wife shortly after a refund, raising suspicion of personal benefit and diversion of funds. Furthermore, the prosecution highlighted the applicant's history of multiple pending criminal cases, including those for cheating.