Court rejects bail plea of two accused in Seva Vikas Bank loan fraud

Special court denies bail to Sagar Suryawanshi and Vishal Kudekar in ₹429.57 crore fraud case at Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, Pune; stringent conditions cited.

MUMBAI: A special court designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Thursday rejected the bail applications of Sagar Suryawanshi and Enforcement Directorate staff member Vishal Kudekar, 23, in connection with an alleged fraud at Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, Pune.

HT Image

The two were arrested last year in the multi-crore fraud, involving alleged misappropriation of ₹429.57 crore through 124 NPA loan accounts of the co-operative bank.

Special judge MG Deshpande in his separate orders underscored the importance of satisfying the rigours of stringent twin conditions under section 45 (1) of the PML Act. The court held that for qualification of grant of bail, the applicants must satisfy the rigours of these stringent twin conditions, however, upon failing to do so, bail becomes an exception and jail is the rule.

Kudekar’s advocate pleaded for bail on the grounds that Kudekar was falsely implicated, and that the applicant had been arrested only on the suspicion that the documents were provided to him by the co-accused.

“The applicant is a contractual staff of the ED (Enforcement Directorate). The ED has exhaustive machinery to keep every affair secret and under their control which makes it impossible to provide their confidential information and the contract basis employees have limited access to internal data and files of the ED,” the advocates said, adding that the applicant was only obeying his seniors.

Suryawanshi’s advocate had argued that despite the protection granted to the applicant by the High Court, the agency illegally arrested Suryawanshi and then further remanded the applicant in ED custody.

Suryawanshi and his relatives allegedly defrauded the bank of approximately ₹66.7 crore across 10 NPA loan accounts. The advocate added that the Suryawanshi was never given an opportunity to be heard before declaring his loan amounts as NPA.

Refuting these claims, the ED contended that the applicants were actively involved in a grave offence of money laundering, handling and laundering of bank funds, which essentially constitute public funds, thereby causing significant losses to the bank. The agency further called upon the stringent conditions under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.