Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious allegations of financial misconduct. The Court found that the material collected during the investigation, particularly the documentary evidence showing the property intended for the sugar factory being purchased in the name of the applicant’s wife through a private entity, indicated a prima facie diversion of funds for personal gains. The Court noted the proximity of dates between the loan refund and the execution of sale deeds in favour of the applicant's wife as a significant circumstance. Furthermore, the Court considered the existence of multiple criminal cases pending against the applicant, including those for cheating, and the complex nature of the financial transactions involving multiple accounts and entities. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Tarun Kumar, and Nimmagadda Prasad, the Court held that economic 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 custodial interrogation was necessary for a thorough investigation and that there was a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if the applicant were released on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, 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. While a portion of the loan was used for loan repayment, the remaining amount was allegedly diverted to various accounts without supporting documentation for modernization or expansion of the sugar factory, leading to a misappropriation of approximately ₹16,00,62,000/-. The petitioner argued that a collaboration agreement permitted such financing and that modernization efforts had increased the factory's capacity. The prosecution highlighted the sale of properties to an entity represented by the petitioner's wife shortly after a loan refund, suggesting fund diversion for personal benefit, and noted multiple pending criminal cases against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of financial irregularities and diversion of loan funds for personal gain, considering the nature of economic offences? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that a collaboration (Lease) Agreement dated 03.08.2015, with prior government and Commissioner of Sugar approval, formed the basis of the transaction. He argued that the agreement, specifically Clauses ‘u’, ‘v’, and ‘w’, permitted SGSPL to raise finance by mortgaging the sugar factory's and its own properties. The petitioner also submitted that modernization efforts, supported by GST invoices and other expenditure details, had significantly increased the factory's crushing capacity, benefiting the factory and its shareholders. He emphasized that the loan was raised to liquidate outstanding dues under a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and for modernization, as permitted. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that despite repeated notices, the factory management failed to produce requisite records. The audit revealed no supporting material for the utilization of the loan for modernization or expansion, with bank statements indicating diversion of funds to unrelated entities. The State pointed to the subsequent sale of the very same properties to an entity represented by the applicant’s wife, shortly after a loan refund, suggesting a structured transaction for personal benefit and diversion of funds. The State also highlighted the existence of multiple pending criminal cases against the petitioner, including those for cheating, indicating a pattern of conduct.