HC grants interim protection to Pushpak Bullions director

The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Pushpak Bullions director Chandrakant Patel in a bank loan fraud case registered by the CBI. The case involves the gold trading firm causing a wrongful loss of INR 89.19 crore ($12 million) to Union Bank of India. The court cited the delay in filing the complaint and registering the FIR as reasons for granting interim protection.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to Pushpak Bullions director Chandrakant Patel in a bank loan fraud case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in November last year.

HT Image

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had earlier probed Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray’s brother-in-law in connection with a case against the gold trading firm, which is accused of causing wrongful loss of ₹89.19 crore to Union Bank of India.

The agency had on November 25, 2022, registered the case against the firm, Patel and others based on a complaint lodged by a deputy general manager of the bank on December 3, 2018.

According to the agency, in 2011, the company had availed credit limits from the bank to the tune of ₹107 crore. Two years later, the limit was enhanced to ₹147 crore. In February 2016, the account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and in July 2017, a forensic audit report was submitted to the bank based on which the account was declared fraud.

Patel had in March 2023 moved the HC for pre-arrest bail after his plea was rejected by the sessions court in February 2023.

Patel’s counsel pointed out that the bank had lodged the complaint on December 3, 2018. Two years later, on September 1, 2020, the anti-corruption wing of the CBI informed the bank that it had no mandate to investigate the allegations since no known or unknown bank official was named in the complaint.

The lawyer further pointed out that the agency asked the bank to file a fresh complaint by naming a known or unknown bank official/s and also called for fresh forensic audit by another auditor to spell out the modus operandi employed in the alleged fraud and the trail of fund diversion, and also spell out the role of directors. The lawyer added that the bank accordingly filed a fresh complaint in October 2020, but without a fresh forensic audit.

The single judge bench of justice Anuja Prabhudessai took note of the fact that that the alleged fraud came to light some time in 2016, the second complaint was lodged in October 2020 and the FIR was registered in November 2022 – almost two years after the date of the complaint and granted interim protection to Patel in view of the delay in filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR.

“In my considered view, this is a fit case to grant interim protection,” justice Prabhudessai said, while ordering that Patel be released on furnishing bail bond of ₹30,000 and one or two sureties of the same amount.