Gauhati High Court
Narendra Borah vs The State Of Assam on 9 January, 2023
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/4
GAHC010251102022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3642/2022
NARENDRA BORAH
S/O- HEM KANTA BORAH,
R/O- DARIGOJI,
P.S- KALIABOR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM .
REP BY PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 09.01.2023 Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.
2. By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner viz. Narendra Borah has approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kaliabor Police Station Case no. 75/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/409/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC].
3. The Director, M/s. Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship [I.I.E.], Guwahati, has lodged Page No. 2/4 the First Information Report [FIR] on 01.12.2022 highlighting the transactions carried out in respect of a joint Escrow Account no. 0038825255837 by the name of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Co-operative Society, Kaliabor, Assam maintained at Kaliabor Branch of the State Bank of India jointly by M/s. Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship [I.I.E.], Guwahati [Nodal Agency] and M/s. Silk and Handicraft Co-operative Society Limited [implementing agency]. As per the mandate, the said Escrow Account is to be operated jointly by M/s. I.I.E., Guwahati as Nodal Agency and the Secretary, M/s. Silk and Handicraft Co-operative Society Limited. The petitioner herein is the Secretary of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Co-operative Society Limited and he is the authorized person to operate the said Escrow Account jointly with M/s. I.I.E., Guwahati. In the FIR, allegation is made to the effect that though the Escrow Account is to be operated jointly through cheques, the Bank authorities of Kaliabor Branch, State Bank of India had allowed transfer of fund through net banking to the petitioner as the Secretary of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Cooperative Society Limited, without any authorization from the co- signatory, M/s. I.I.E., Guwahati. As a result, the petitioner as the Secretary of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Cooperative Society has transferred an amount of 110.73 lakhs to the individual account of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Cooperative Society Limited and other accounts without any authorization from M/s. I.I.E., Guwahati.
4. Thus, from the FIR, it appears that the petitioner is accused of fraudulently diverting a sum of Rs. 1.10 crore from an Escrow Joint Bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch, which is to be operated jointly by M/s. Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship [I.E.E.] and M/s. Silk and Handicraft Co-operative Society Limited, where the petitioner is the Secretary.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Escrow Account was to be operated jointly but during Covid-19 pandemic period, the petitioner approached the State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch where the Escrow Account is being maintained, to grant him net banking access and the permission to operate the Escrow Account through net banking was formally granted by the Bank. It was after grant of such access, the amounts from the joint Escrow Account were withdrawn from time to time and a part of it was transferred to another account maintained in the same bank and Branch in the name of M/s. Silk and Page No. 3/4 Handicraft Cooperative Society Limited, Kaliabor and other accounts.
6. On the previous date of listing of the application i.e. on 03.01.2023, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the case diary wherein a written reply of the State Bank of India to queries made by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case was enclosed. The Court having perused the said reply of the State Bank of India, found the same to be an evasive one throwing no light about the procedure the State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch had followed in granting net banking access to the petitioner who is the Secretary of M/s. Silk and Handicraft Cooperative Society Limited, Kaliabor to transfer amounts from time to time from the joint Escrow Account. The informant, the Director, M/s. Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship [I.I.E.] in the FIR, had alleged that the access to the joint Escrow account was illegally done. It was observed that the I.O. of the case should submit a report in that regard after getting clarification from the State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch on the next date of listing. It was observed that the culpability or otherwise of the petitioner can only be ascertained on receipt of a clarification from the State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch where the joint Escrow Account is maintained as to the procedure of the Bank had followed in granting net banking access to the petitioner.
7. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has not yet received any material to make submission as regards the procedure followed by the Bank in granting net banking access to the petitioner to operate the joint Escrow Account by the State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch. He has, therefore, sought for listing of the application on another date.
8. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that the net Banking access to operate the joint Escrow Account was permitted by the bank authorities of State Bank of India, Kaliabor Branch, it is provided, in the interim and till further consideration is made on the basis of the materials in the case diary, that in the event of arrest of the petitioner viz. Narendra Borah in connection with Kaliabor Police Station Case no. 75/2022, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the conditions that :-
Page No. 4/4[i] the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case within 7 [seven] days from today and shall cooperate with the investigation and shall thereafter, make himself available as and when his presence are required by the I.O. in the investigation of the case;
[ii] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and [iii] the petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.
9. List the case on 07.02.2023.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant