Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Singhai vs Central Bureau Of ... on 17 July, 2019
Author: Anant Kumar
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- BAIL No. - 10530 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singhai Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation,S.C.B.Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Jinendra Kumar Jain,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
Affidavit filed on behalf of CBI is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for CBI and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime/ F.I.R. No.0532014A00006, R.C. No.6A/2014, under Sections 120-B r/w 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(C) and (D) P.C. Act and 66 of I.T. Act, 2000, Police Station - C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow.
The matter was initiated on the basis of two public complaints, which were received one from Manoj Shivhare and other from Vinod Jain to the effect that huge amount has been misappropriated in 27 Saving Bank Accounts standing at Lalitpur Head Post Office under the Jhansi Postal Division in U.P. Circle. During the preliminary enquiry it was found that one account was written twice, hence 26 accounts were found initially and an amount of Rs.16,59,600/- has been defrauded. On the basis of this complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation proceeded. During investigation it was found that the applicant is a National Savings Agent and he had identified certain account holders. The amount was withdrawn from the said account. Later on, it was found that the account holders are not in existence and had not withdrawn the amount.
During argument, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in fact the entire fraud was done by the Officer / Officials of the post office when the computer module was changed and forged credit in certain bank accounts were made by making forged entries and also by making forged entries the amount was withdrawn. The applicant was only an agent and was sitting outside the post-office. The applicant being a National Saving Agent under the influence of Postal Officers / Officials made signature on certain papers. It is further stated that it has come during the investigation that Sukumar jain and Suneel Kumar Tewari got deposited Rs.46,59,800/- in the name of present applicant Manoj Singhai and co-accused Anil Kumar Jain, both are the SAS Agents in the head of UCR (Unclassified Receipts) at the MPCM counter vide total 12 receipts of different dates during period of departmental enquiry. It is further revealed that wife of accused Shailesh Kishore Khare and wife of Indrajeet Tiwari have sold their properties during the period of departmental enquiry, which was acquired jointly and the total value of selling was Rs.1,35,24,000/-
It is further stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a poor person and has not been benefited by any such transaction. The entire fraud was committed by postal employees / officer/ officials. Since the applicant was under the influence of officer/officials of Postal Department, he had made signature on certain papers or his name was written by other persons. The applicant is in jail since 8.10.2018. There is no likelihood that the trial is being completed at the earliest.
It is mentioned in the affidavit filed today on behalf of C.B.I. that in order to facilitate in these fraudulent withdrawals, they used to take witness of National Saving Agents on the withdrawal vouchers which is prohibited as per rules. On the basis of fake witnessing done by National Savings Agents Anil Kumar Jain and Manoj Singhai, huge amount of money was misappropriated by them, which caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3,11,75,845 to the Government Exchequer and a wrongful gain to themselves.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
However, it is made clear that while releasing the applicant on bail, heavy sureties shall be imposed to ensure their presence during trial.
Let applicant (Manoj Kumar Singhai) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 S. Kumar