Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 06 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant Ghanshyam Tiwari (Director of Himanshu Garments Private Limited) vs. Respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- Proceedings: Criminal Appeal No. 11999/2026 (SLP(CRL.) No. 11999 of 2026) challenging the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench order dated 20‑Nov‑2025 which dismissed the appellant’s prayer to quash pending criminal proceedings.
- Allegations: The prosecution alleged that Tiwari, as director of Himanshu Garments Pvt. Ltd., conspired with officials of UCO Bank and approved valuers to submit over‑valued collateral (including heritage properties and Delhi properties) and forged foreign purchase orders to obtain packing‑credit and post‑shipment credit limits far exceeding permissible limits. It was further alleged that he created a sister concern, Meenakshi Garments Pvt. Ltd., using his brother as a front to extract additional loans, causing a wrongful loss of over ₹4.27 crore to UCO Bank. The CBI filed a chargesheet against Tiwari and seven other accused.
- Trial History: Tiwari’s bail bond was cancelled on 23‑Aug‑2014 by a Special Judge; he was declared a proclaimed offender/absconder on 05‑Jan‑2015. After trial of the other accused and a split‑up of the chargesheet, the trial court acquitted the other accused on 31‑Aug‑2018, finding that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, forgery, and criminal misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.
- High Court Proceedings: The CBI appealed the acquittal (SB Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 235/2019). Tiwari invoked Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, seeking quash of the proceedings on the ground that continuation would be an abuse of process and that the evidence against him was inseparable from that against the acquitted accused. He contended his prior absence was due to medical issues from an accident in the United States and a communication gap with his advocate.
- High Court Decision: The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the evidentiary issues could be examined only after full trial and that the appellant, having been absconding for 17 years, could not rely on the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Observations
- The Court noted that the evidence against the appellant must be examined in trial and that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the case.
- Although the Supreme Court had stayed the arrest warrant on 03‑Jul‑2026, it observed that the appellant was nonetheless taken into custody by the trial court, which the Court could not accept.
Final Outcome
- The petition to quash the proceedings is rejected.
- The appellant is released on interim bail subject to conditions that may be imposed by the trial court, including surrender of passport, restriction on leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and mandatory appearance before the trial court on all hearing dates.
- The appeal is allowed in part (bail granted, quash rejected).
- Any pending applications are ordered to stand disposed of.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Banking Fraud, Criminal Appeal