Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Soni vs Cbi Acb on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
1 MCRC-5562-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5562 of 2026
DEEPAK SONI
Versus
CBI ACB
Appearance:
Shri Alok Vagrecha - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the respondent/CBI.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.
RC0082025A0008 registered at Police Station – CBI/ACB, District Bhopal (M.P.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4) of BNS and Sections
13(2), 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Applicant has been arrested on
1.09.2025.
2. According to the prosecution story, the Central Bureau of Investigation
(ACB), Bhopal registered FIR No. RC0082025A0008 under Sections 120-B, 420,
468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (as amended) alleging that a criminal conspiracy was hatched involving
multiple accused persons including private individuals and officials of UCO Bank
to defraud the bank by obtaining gold loans against counterfeit gold ornaments. It
is alleged that 73 gold loan accounts were fraudulently sanctioned at the Lalghati
branch of UCO Bank, Bhopal based on fake gold items appraised and certified by
empanelled valuers. These fake ornaments were purportedly pledged by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
2 MCRC-5562-2026
borrowers some of whom are alleged to have familial or associative ties with the
applicant applicant and co-accused Manish Kushwaha. The FIR and subsequent
charge sheet assert that the appraisers in collusion with accused bank staff and
private individuals provided false valuation certificates and enabled the
disbursement of approximately Rs 6.5 crore later assessed to be Rs. 7.083 crore
during further investigation. The CBI investigation claims that applicant and co-
accused Manish Kushwaha played a key role in orchestrating the fraudulent
transactions by encouraging and facilitating the opening of loan accounts in the
names of relatives and others with the fake gold allegedly provided or arranged by
him. The FIR notes that some of the loan proceeds were routed to accounts linked
to the applicant or withdrawn in cash allegedly pointing to his involvement in
siphoning off funds. Therefore, aforesaid offence has been registered against him
and co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 1.09.2025. It is
submitted that the role attributed to applicant is extremely limited and confined
only to re-appraisal of certain already sanctioned gold loan accounts at UCO
Bank, Marwari Road Branch and Piplani Branch, Bhopal. He was never involved
in the sanction, disbursement, renewal or operation of any gold loan account. He
has only discharged his personal duties upon being called by the concerning
Branch Manager and work of re-appraisal was conducted by the bank authorities.
He has not manipulated any jewellary. The jwellary was under the custody of
Bank and bank officers are responsible for such offence. It is submitted that with
regard to Gold Loan Account Nos. 01360610024140 and 01360610024157, the
applicant himself had pledged genuine gold articles, repaid the loan amount, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
3 MCRC-5562-2026
sought return of his pledged gold and he had no role in the appointment or identity
of the valuer, nor any knowledge of who would appraise the gold. Though the
matter was argued on merits but learned counsel has also taken this point that
charge sheet has been filed but alongwith charge sheet CFSL/Expert Opinion
regarding fake gold jewellary is not filed due to which charge sheet is incomplete
but learned trial court has erroneously rejected the bail application. In this regard
counsel for applicant has placed reliance on Arif Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8610/2023, Mohd. Arbaz, ETC. Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8164-8166/2021,
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Manpreet Singh Talwar, Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 5724/2023, Suleman Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1929/2023. Therefore, applicant is entitled for default
bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application on the
ground that applicant alongwith other co-accused entered into criminal conspiracy
and in furtherance of that conspiracy applicant Deepak Soni and other co-accused
exploited their exclusive positions and issued false authentication certificates for
fake gold loans in four branches of UCO Bank (United Commercial Bank)
Bhopal. This fraud has resulted in an estimated financial loss of approximately Rs.
25-26 crores. These co-accused persons h a s issued false authentication
certificates in 73 gold loan cases. All these gold loan accounts subsequently
slipped into NPA, causing a loss of about Rs. 6.5 crores to UCO Bank, Marwari
Branch, Bhopal.
5. It is further submitted that the accused borrowers subsequently withdrew
the loan amounts or transferred the money into the savings accounts of the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
4 MCRC-5562-2026
middlemen. It is also submitted that, on the directions of the Zonal Office, UCO
Bank, Bhopal, verification and re-appraisal of existing gold loan accounts were
carried out by corporate valuers. On 28.02.2025, 01.03.2025, and 04.03.2025, it
was found that the jewellery pledged in 73 gold loan accounts was either
completely or partially fake.
6. It is further submitted that applicant also took gold loan on fake jewellary
and he is also valuer of the Bank. The pledged jewellary packets were re-apprised
by present applicant and he certified all the pledged jewellaries as genuine but out
of these 74 gold loan accounts, 5 accounts were subsequently declared fraudulant
by corporate valuer. It is further submitted that in the investigation it is also found
that gold loan accounts were renewed by closing the earlier gold accounts which
had already been included in the aforesaid cross-verification of 74 accounts dated
16.03.2024. These renewed loans were also availed by pledging fake jewellaries
and present applicant as a valuer certified the same as genuine in as many as 26
gold loan accounts.
7. It is also submitted that applicant Deepak Soni himself had availed 02
gold loans 1.A/c No. 1360610024140 & 2. A/c No. 1360610024157 from
Marwari/ Main Branch, UCO Bank, Bhopal. The pledged jewellery in these gold
loan accounts found to be partially fake. It is submitted that gold loan Account
No. 01360610023792 of Deepak Soni was sanctioned at Marwari Road Branch,
UCO Bank, and the proceeds of this loan were utilized to liquidate the outstanding
amount of gold loan Account No. 01360610023785 of Gulmohar Branch, UCO
Bank, Bhopal. Investigation further revealed that the same set of pledged
jewellaries was used for securing both the gold loans at Marwari Road Branch and
Gulmohar Branch. This establishes that the gold loan at Marwari Road Branch
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
5 MCRC-5562-2026
was sanctioned without proper appraisal of the pledged jewelry and the
loan proceeds were deliberately used to close the earlier gold loan account. It is
further submitted that the present applicant, the accused borrowers, and other
valuers were in close contact through mobile phones and the CDR reports reveal
that they were in constant communication with each other. It is submitted that this
is an economic offence in which the huge public money has been defalcated by the
accused persons kept in the Bank. Charge sheet has been filed.
8. It is also submitted that till the issue in question i.e. whether a charge-
sheet filed without CFSL report/Expert opinion regarding fake gold jewellary is
complete or incomplete for the purpose of default bail is decided by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the prevailing law will cover the present case and the applicant will
not be entitled to grant of default bail.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The present application has also been filed seeking default bail on the
ground of non-filing of CFSL report/Expert Opinion regarding fake gold jewellary
alongwith the chargesheet, and the main grievance of applicant is that the trial
Court has erroneously declined the relief of default bail to him.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that in recent judgment of Supreme Court
delivered in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 66 ,
wherein it was held as under:
“22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under
Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details
prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section
173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:247526 MCRC-5562-2026
cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure
sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the
necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete
if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses
as required by Section 175 (5). As settled in the afore-stated case, it is
not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167
of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet
is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once
however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted
that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation
in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only
because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the
accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the
prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some
reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet,
that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is
also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not
the offender. Once from the material produced along with the
chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence
and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the
accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of
Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further
investigation qua the other accused or for production of some
documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would
neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim
right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an
incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of
Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C.”
12. Though in cases of Mohd. Arbaz & Ors Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
(supra), Arif Khan Vs. State (supra) and Pankaj Gupta Vs. Narcotics Control
Bureau (supra), the accused persons have been enlarged on interim bail by the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that, interim bail has been declined by the
Apex Court in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan (supra), Pabitra Narayan
Pradhan Vs. The State (NGT) of Delhi (SLP (crI.) Diary No. 43791 of 2023),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
7 MCRC-5562-2026
Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai Vs. The State of Gujarat (order dated
03.03.2023 in SLP (CrI) No.2562/2023).
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground for
grant of default bail to the present applicant.
15. Looking to the seriousness of offence, allegation levelled against the
applicant and the entire evidence available on record, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant.
16. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
navin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20