2020 (9) TMI 1269 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - criminal conspiracy - fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Bank Accounts of different persons - operation of inoperative accounts of the customers by issuing Cheque Books in the name of those customers of the Bank and used to withdraw the amount from their accounts fraudulently - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Challan has been submitted against him more than four months ago and there is no requirement for his further detention especially in view of the fact that he was taken into custody in the present case before he could be released on bail granted to him by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Ld. State Counsel has nevertheless also contended that considering the nature of offences involved there is every likelihood that the Petitioner will abscond and flee from justice on account of which he should not be released on bail. This submission however does not appear to be substantiated considering the previous background of the Petitioner s arrest and implication in FIR No.161 dated 21.9.2018. Inspite of having been granted bail on 24.5.2019 in FIR No.161 of 2018 of the same Police Station the Pettioner had never misused his liberty and was diligent in attending the Court till 18.12.2019 after which he was arrested and there is no material to indicate that he had tried to flee away. This Court finds the Petitioner to be entitled to regular bail in the present case considering his long detention exceeding 6 months and the fact that Challan against him has been filed long ago. He is therefore ordered to be released on bail subject to imposition of appropriate terms and conditions to ensure his attendance which are left to the discretion of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Regular Bail Application, False Implication, Similar Allegations in Multiple FIRs, Insufficient Evidence, Prolonged Detention, Economic Offences, Right to Bail, Likelihood of Absconding, Tampering with Evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Application:
The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No.76 dated 23.05.2019, registered under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations included fraudulent withdrawal of money and preparing forged documents to commit fraud. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the documents were managed by other bank officials as well.

2. False Implication:
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, as no fraud was committed by him. He argued that he was not responsible for the alleged fraud since the account holders were operating their accounts, and he was not the custodian of those accounts. He claimed that the FIR was an attempt to extend his incarceration, given that a similar FIR with the same allegations was previously lodged against him.

3. Similar Allegations in Multiple FIRs:
The petitioner highlighted that a similar FIR (No.161 dated 21.09.2018) was previously lodged against him, in which he was granted bail. He argued that the current FIR was based on the same set of allegations and was drawn up to detain him indefinitely. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in 'Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.' to support his contention that only one FIR is permissible for acts forming part of the same transaction.

4. Insufficient Evidence:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the evidence collected during the investigation was insufficient and incomplete. It was noted that the sample signatures of the petitioner were obtained much later and sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert. The counsel contended that the challan was filed in a hurry to keep the petitioner in detention artificially.

5. Prolonged Detention:
The petitioner’s counsel cited several decisions, including 'Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI', to argue that indefinite incarceration of the accused is not justified, especially when the investigation is complete, and the trial may take a long time. The counsel emphasized that prolonged detention without a speedy trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. Economic Offences:
The court acknowledged that the petitioner was charged with economic offences involving fraudulent transactions and preparation of forged documents. However, the court noted that the primary evidence against the petitioner was documentary, and his prolonged detention was not necessary for further investigation.

7. Right to Bail:
The court considered the petitioner’s right to bail, emphasizing that the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be balanced. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in 'Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI' that the right to bail should not be denied merely because of the seriousness of the offence.

8. Likelihood of Absconding:
The State argued that the petitioner might abscond if released on bail. However, the court found this submission unsubstantiated, considering the petitioner’s previous conduct. The court noted that the petitioner had diligently attended the trial court proceedings and had not misused his liberty when previously granted bail.

9. Tampering with Evidence:
The State also contended that the petitioner might tamper with the evidence if released on bail. The court found this argument unfounded, as the petitioner was suspended from his post and had no access to the bank records and documents, which constituted the primary evidence against him.

Conclusion:
The court found the petitioner entitled to regular bail, considering his long detention exceeding 6½ months and the fact that the challan was filed long ago. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions to ensure his attendance, as determined by the trial court/duty magistrate concerned.