शिमला। KCC Bank Loan कांड में मुख्यमंत्री सुखविंदर सिंह सुक्खू और उनके टोली के खिलाफ इडी और सीबीआइ में भ्रष्टाचार की तमाम शिकायतें करने वाले कांग्रेस नेता युद्ध चंद बैंस को सलाखों के पीछे भेजने की मंशा पर प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने करारी चोट की है।
सुक्खू सरकार 24 अप्रैल को KCC Bank Loan कांड में मुख्य आरोपी बनाए गए बैंस को हाईकोर्ट से मिली जमानत को खारिज करवाने के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट की चौखट पर भी गई। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बैंस को मिली जमानत के इस आदेश को खारिज कर सुक्खू सरकार को इस मामले पर दोबारा विचार करने के लिए हाईकोर्ट में जाने का आदेशा दिया था।
प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट की जस्टिस राकेश कैंथला की एकल खंडपीठ ने इस मामले में नए सिरे से विचार करते हुए सुक्खू सरकार की विजीलेंस को कटघरे में खड़ा करते हुए सरकार की बैंस की जमानत को रदद करने के आदेश को चुनौती देने वाली अर्जी को खारिज कर दिया।
ये सुक्खू सरकार व विजीलेंस के लिए बड़ा झटका हैं।
जस्टिस कैंथला ने अपने फैसले में विजीलेंस जांच की बखिया उधेड़ कर रख दी है। फैसले में कहा है कि इस कर्ज को केसीसी बैंक के तत्कालीन अध्यक्ष राजीव भारदवाज की अध्यक्षता में हुई बैंक के बोर्ड आफ डायरेक्रर्स की बैठक में मंजूर किया था। याद रहे राजीव भारदवाज मौजूदा समय में भाजपा के राज्ससभा सांसद है।
फैसले में विजीलेंस की जांच पर सवाल उठाते हुए अदालत ने कहा कि विजीलेंस ने राजीव भारदवाज (भाजपा सांसद) को न तो अरेस्ट किया और न ही उससे पूछताछ की ।भारदवाज को केवल नोटिस (प्रश्नावली)भेजा गया जिसका भारदवाज ने जवाब तक नहीं दिया।
अदालत ने ये बड़ा सवाल उठाया है। अब सवाल ये है कि सुक्खू की विजीलेंस ने भाजपा सांसद को अरेस्ट क्यो नहीं किया और उनसे पूछताछ क्यों नहीं की। जब भाजपा सांसद ने नोटिस का जवाब ही नहीं दिया तो उनके खिलाफ आगामी कर्यवाही क्यों नहीं की।
सुक्खू सरकार की विजीलेंस ने ये अपने ही स्तर पर किया या फिर सुक्खू का इस बावत कोई इशारा था। याद रहे विजीलेंस विभाग मुख्यमंत्री सुक्खू के अपने अधीन है। अदालत ने इसके अलावा भी विजीलेंस जांच पर कई सवाल उठाए हैं।
ये कहा है अदालत ने अपने फैसले में -:
सुक्खू राज में कारनामा-भाजपा सांसद ने प्रश्नावली का जवाब तक नहीं दिया
It was noticed on 18.02.2026 that Rajeev Bhardwaj,(मौजूदा समय में भाजपा सांसद) then Chairman of the Board of Directors, had neither been interrogated nor joined
the investigation so far. Hence, a questionnaire was prepared and forwarded to him but he did not respond to the questionnaire.
Therefore, the record shows that the police have released five members of the Board of Directors by serving them notices because the offence alleged against them is non-bailable but punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment. The police interrogated and relieved some of the members of the Board of Directors.
The police have not even interrogated Yog Raj, Lekh Raj, Rajeev Bhardwaj(भाजपा सांसद) and Rakhil Kahlon(पूर्व आइएएस आफसर मौजूदा समय में हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग की सदस्य) .
पुलिस बैंस और उसके बेटे को ही अरेस्ट करना चाहती है
अदालत ने कहा कि This conduct of the police shows the gravity of the so-called ‘economic offence involving the large-scale financial fraud’. As already noticed, the distinguishing feature of this case from a simple loan account gone bad is that, in the present case, as per the prosecution, the Board of Directors had actively violated the RBI guidelines/NABARD guidelines to benefit the petitioner, Yudh Chand Bains. It is not explained that if the offence against the persons who had granted the loan in violation of all the banking norms and the conditions is worth serving notice, how the
offence against the borrower, his son and the officials who had put the files before the Board of Directors is serious enough to justify their custodial interrogation. This fortifies the earlier conclusion that there is something more in this case than meets
the eye, and the police are only bent upon arresting the petitioner, Yudh Chand Bains and his son.
यहां भी सुक्खू की विजीलेंस को अदालत ने धो डाला है
In the present case, the police have termed the offence as an economic offence, but their conduct does not justify this inference, and the petitioners cannot be denied pre arrest bail when other persons accused of committing a graver offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act have been released on bail by serving notices upon them or have not even been interrogated.
विजीलेंस की ओर से बैंस की कस्टडी मांगने पर अदालत ने कहा कि -: Accepting the
submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel would reduce the Courts to rubber stamps and confer unbridled power upon the police, which is an anathema to a society governed by therule of law.
The status report mentions that the petitioner, Yudh Chand Bains, is to be interrogated to determine the source and destination of the money taken as a loan. The police have already collected,interrogated the various statements persons
to of accounts whom the and money have was transferred. The police have also called and interrogated the petitioner repeatedly. In the absence of the arrest of the persons who had sanctioned the loan, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner Yudh Chand Bains is not justified.
It was submitted that the petitioner, Yudh Chand Bains, has not cooperated with the investigation. However, the nature of cooperation was not specified by the prosecution. The petitioner has a right to silence, and he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
विजीलेंस ने अदालत तक को नहीं दिखाए दस्तावेज
फैसले में कहा गया है कि -In the present case, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are pending, and if the recovery is to be effected, it has to be as per law and not by resorting to the threat of arrest.
Hence, the submission that the petitioner is to be arrested torecover the money will not help the prosecution.
केस डायरी दिखाई पर कौन से कागजात कब्जे में लिए गए अदालत को नहीं दिखाए गए
।The case diary was produced before the Court, but the documents seized by the police have been withheld. Even the report based on which the FIR was registered was not produced before the Court.
Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the conclusions drawn by the police. No reason was assigned as to why only the case diary and not the documents seized by the
police have been handed over to the Court. Thus, the submission
that the police have collected sufficient material to justify the petitioner’s pre-trial detention cannot be accepted.
मंजूर होने से पहले ही बांट दिया कर्ज
The status report dated 25.03.2025 in the case of Ashok Kumar and dated 06.03.2025 filed in the case of petitioner Yudh Chand Bains mentions that the loan of ₹12 crores was sanctioned on 05.07.2016, a loan of ₹7.87 crores was sanctioned on 15.06.2017, a loan of ₹39.68 crores was sanctioned on 20.09.2017, and a loan of ₹39.68 crores was sanctioned on 25.02.2019. As per the status report dated 24.01.2025, the certificate was forged on 30.06.2019. Therefore, the loans were disbursed before the sanction of the loan, and it is difficult to see how the utilisation certificate could have been used to mislead the Bank into granting the loan.
It was submitted that the economic offences are to be viewed differently from the normal offences. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that the cases involving economic fraud are to be viewed seriously, and a person involved in the
economic fraud is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. However, the commission of an economic offence is to be established before applying this principle. In the present case, the investigation conducted so far does not show any economic
offence. At the cost of repetition, the Board of Directors, who are responsible for this economic fraud, are still at large because the offence alleged against some of them is non-bailable and punishable with less than seven years imprisonment and against
others, not even worth their interrogation despite a lapse of more than one year since the registration of the FIR. Hence, the plea that there is economic fraud justifying the denial of prearrest bail is not acceptable.
It is undisputed that the Bank had issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, and the petitioner Yudh Chand Bains had obtained a stay order from the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, where the proceedings are pending. There is a force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, युद्ध चंद बैंस that it is a case of disbursal of a loan and failure to return it, for which the appropriate remedy is the Civil Courts, and recourse cannot be had to the Criminal Courts to recover the money taken as a loan. When some of members of the Board of Directors have been released after serving a notice upon them, the submission that the present case is a case of abuse of the position by the public servants to benefit the individual cannot be accepted.
बेटे के खाते में पैसे ट्रांसफर करना कैसे अपराध बना
The police are also seeking to arrest the petitioner Harish Chand (युद्ध चंद के पुत्र) because money was transferred to his account by petitioner Yudh Chand Bains. He is simply a beneficiary of thetransfer made by petitioner Yudh Chand Bains, and it is not
shown what crime was committed by him in receiving the money. Section 411 of IPC punishes a receiver of the stolen property, but in the absence of any allegation of criminal breachof trust, his case is not covered under this provision.No other point was urged.
इन तमाम आब्जर्वेशंस के साथ अदालत ने युद्ध चंद बैंस की जमानत बहाल रखी और सुक्खू सरकार व विजीलेंस को बड़ा झटका दे दिया।
(24)
