HC Orders CBI To Seek Case-Specific Consent In Loan Fraud Case

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court held that the withdrawal of general consent by the state government cannot be used as a ground to stall investigation into a major bank fraud, and directed the CBI to initiate the process for obtaining case-specific consent in a ₹47.37-crore loan fraud involving M/s Jupiter Bio Sciences Limited. The judge observed that once a fraud of such magnitude is reported in compliance with RBI directions, the investigating agency cannot remain inactive merely because general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was withdrawn, and must instead seek specific consent from the state government to proceed with the investigation. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by UCO Bank. The case arose from loans aggregating to ₹56 crore sanctioned by the bank in 2008-2009, which later turned into non-performing assets. A forensic audit conducted in 2023 reportedly found fabrication of quotations, diversion of funds, and inflated valuation of mortgaged properties, leading the bank to classify the account as fraud and report the matter to the RBI. The bank then lodged complaints with the CBI, but the agency closed them citing discrepancies in the complaint and absence of general consent from the state. The judge noted that the state government itself stated that it would consider granting consent if a proposal is sent by the CBI, and held that failure to initiate that process would defeat the statutory scheme under RBI fraud-reporting directions. It further held that discrepancies in the complaint cannot be treated as a jurisdictional bar to registration of a case where serious allegations of fraud exist. Accordingly, the judge allowed the writ petition and directed the CBI to process the bank’s complaint, seek specific consent from the state government, and proceed in accordance with law if such consent is granted.Pension no bar for job Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ruled that family pension cannot be treated as a bar for providing employment on compassionate grounds. The judge allowed a writ petition filed by Md. Khaja Sayeed Ahmed challenging the rejection memos issued by the panchayat raj department declining his claim for compassionate appointment after the death of his mother, who was working as a mandal trade instructor in a Zilla Parishad school and died while in service in 2009. The petitioner contended that he applied for compassionate appointment within one year of his mother’s death, but the authorities rejected his claim on the grounds that his father was receiving pension and that the request was made after a long delay. He argued that pension cannot be treated as an earning member’s income and that the delay occurred due to pendency of the application with the department. The judge observed that the issue whether family pension can be treated as income is no longer res integra and earlier precedents laid down by the high court held that pension cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment. The judge also noted that the petitioner submitted his application within one year from the date of death of the employee and therefore the authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay. Setting aside the rejection memos, the judge directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment, if he is otherwise eligible.Bail in Jubilee Hills crash The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman who was named as a co-accused in a fatal road accident at Jubilee Hills that resulted in the death of a child and injuries to pedestrians, noting that he was implicated nearly two years after the incident only on the basis of the confession statement of another accused. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Mohammed Raheel Aamir seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered at Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, for offences under the IPC and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of a road accident that led to the death of a child and injuries to pedestrians.According to the prosecution, the accident occurred on March 17, 2022 near Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, when the complainant and her family, who were selling fruits and balloons on the footpath, were seated on a road divider when a speeding car allegedly hit them, causing injuries to several persons and the death of a minor boy. Initially, another person was named as the accused, but the petitioner was later implicated based on the confession statement of the co-accused. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that he was not named in the FIR, and that he was added as an accused only in 2024. He submitted that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. The prosecution opposed the plea, stating that the petitioner was residing abroad, was not cooperating with the investigation, and that his custodial interrogation was required. Observing that the case relates to the year 2022, that the petitioner was not originally shown as an accused, and that there was no substantial progress in the investigation, the judge granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.



Source link