Rajesh Bothra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ...

Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Sp And Head Of Branch Acb Lko.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Nadeem Murtaza

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

Anurag Kumar Singh

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Advocate, Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Advocate and Sri Ramendra Yadav, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite party-CBI and perused the records.

2. The learned counsel for the opposite party-CBI has filed a counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit today in court, both the affidavits are taken on record.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in F.I.R. No.RC0062024A0032 of 2024, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 471, 467 I.P.C. (Sections 468, 477A I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dropped), registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.

4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a complaint dated 11.11.2024 submitted by the Punjab National Bank stating that a company M/s Frost Infrastructure and Energy Limited and its Directors Uday Jayant Desai, Sunil Verma and Anoop Kumar Wadhera and some unknown persons and some unknown public servants had committed offences by misappropriating the funds of the bank.

5. In brief the allegation were that the Punjab National Bank had granted credit facilities to M/s Frost Infrastructure and Energy Limited. The company defaulted in clearing its liability towards the bank. The company has initially been sanctioned capital NFB (non-fund based)of Rs.75 crore on 80% margin on 13.01.2013, Rs. 75 crore on 80% margin and Rs. 150 crores on 90% margin on 25.11.2013, Rs.75 crore on 80% margin, Rs. 150 crore on 90% margin and Rs. 100 crore on 100% margin on 29.11.2014, which was renewed on 29.03.2016 and the last sanction was made on 05.05.2017. Additionally, the company was granted a forward contract limit of Rs. 11.25 crores also. Thus, the total of the credit facilities advanced to the company comes to Rs. 336.25 crores. However, the bank had not taken any primary security for the grant of a credit facility to the aforesaid company and no immovable property had been mortgaged as collateral security. The facility was advanced only on the personal guarantee of the directors of the company, who have been named above. The company availed the credit facility but failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction. Therefore, the account turned NPA on 07.08.2018. The Bank of India, the lead bank for M/s Frost Infrastructure and Energy Limited on behalf of consortium banks initiated a forensic audit on 18th April 2018. The forensic auditor submitted a report on 05.12.2018, indicating that the company had advanced loans to various parties, thereby siphoning off the credit taken from the bank. The applicant was not named as beneficiary of the loans disbursed by the company. The complaint states that the bank had declared the account as fraud on 15.03.2024. Demand notices were issued on 19.03.2018, 04.04.2018, 25.04.2018 and 09.05.2018 and a recall notice was issued on 03.07.2018 for Rs. 31.60 crores plus interest and expenses. The complaint discloses that some proceeding has been instituted before the DRT, Allahabad for recovery of the aforesaid amount vide OA No. 1080 of 2019.

6. Although the applicant was not named in the FIR however in the charge sheet submitted by the CBI on 10.02.2026, the charge sheet states that investigation has revealed that M/s Frost Infrastructure and Energy Limited projected itself as a genuine merchant trader and represented to the bank that it was purchasing goods from overseas suppliers and selling the same goods to overseas buyers on a back-to-back basis. The company showed purchase of goods from M/s Fareast Distribution and Logistics PTE Ltd. Singapore and sale of the same goods to M/s Gulf Distribution Limited. Both the aforesaid overseas entities were controlled and operated by the applicant, Rajesh Bohtra, who was the shareholder, director and authorized signatory of M/s Fareast Distribution and Logistics PTE Ltd. and was also the director and authorized signatory of M/s Gulf Distribution Limited. The letters of credit were opened in favor of M/s Fareast Distribution and Logistics PTE Ltd., Singapore aggregating to approximately Rs. 208.61 crores. The letters of credit were negotiated through overseas banks. The LLC caused losses to the bank.

Investigation revealed that the shipping documents submitted under the letter of credit by M/s Fareast Distribution and Logistics PTE Ltd. particularly the house bills of lading, purportedly issued by Landmarks Wearing and Forwarding LLC, Dubai were examined with reference to the concerned international shipping lines, namely OOCL, NYK Line, HMM Shipping, CMA CGM, and TS Lines. The questioned House Bills of Lading were neither issued by the said shipping companies nor by any of their authorized agents. The available corresponding master bills of lading further reveal that the actual shipments involved entirely different shippers and consignees, thereby proving that the accused companies were not involved in any genuine shipment of goods.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in eight other criminal cases of similar nature has been disclosed in paragraph 36 to 46 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the cases including allegations of a similar nature.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the present case, the applicant has cooperated with the investigation, which stands concluded, and the charge sheet has already been submitted. The applicant is the only person who was arrested in the present case, and no other accused person was arrested.

9. The learned counsel for respondent CBI has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant is the kingpin of a large-scale banking fraud committed by showing false sale/purchase transactions without any actual transactions having taken place and the applicant is at flight risk.

10. In response to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's passport has already been deposited, which fact is recorded in the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by a coordinate bench of this court and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 403 of 2026. Therefore, the applicant is not at flight risk.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is involved in nine cases of similar nature, in the rest eight of which he has already been granted bail; the applicant has cooperated with the investigation, which stands concluded; the applicant was the only person arrested in the present case and no other person has been arrested; no bank official has been made an accused in the present case and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, even sanction for investigation has not been granted for prosecution of those bank officials under Section 17-A of the Act and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Rajesh Bothra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

May 6, 2026

Ram.