Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vineet Kumar Yadav vs State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2024
CRM-M-30736-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.223
Case No. : CRM-M-30736-2024
Date of Decision : August 08, 2024
Vineet Kumar Yadav .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.336 dated 20.12.2022, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 66 of IT Act (Section 409 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sector 17, District Faridabad.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that FIR in question was lodged on the complaint of one Sushil Kumar, Regional Manager, Gurgaon Region, Bank of Baroda (the Complainant Bank). It was alleged in the FIR that petitioner namely Vineet Kumar Yadav, Staff Special Assistant, posted at Sector 14, Faridabad Branch (now merged with Sector-16 Faridabad Branch) and later, at Faridabad Main Branch of Complainant Bank, had fraudulently debited the Saving and Current Bank Accounts of various customers on the false pretext of deduction of various kinds of charges like MONIKA 2024.08.29 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30736-2024 -2- Minimum Balance Charges, DCARDFEE, SMS Alerts, NACH Return charges etc. He carried out the embezzlement of funds from the accounts of the customers in such a manner that the amounts debited to the customers' accounts were not credited to the Complainant Bank but were transferred mainly to two accounts i.e. Account No. 56180100000332, appearing under the name and style of Madhusudan Khandelwal and Account No. 56180100000531, appearing under the name and style of Ram Dayal, before routing it further to the Joint OD Account No.56180400000018 and SB Account No.56180100001111 of Reena Yadav (wife of the petitioner) and Vineet Kumar Yadav (petitioner). The said bank accounts are also held in the same branch i.e. Sector 14, Faridabad (now merged with Sector 16 Faridabad branch). The total amount, that was embezzled by the petitioner from Saving and Current Bank Accounts, during the period 08.08.2016 to 22.09.2021, using the above modus-operandi, aggregates to Rs. 65,13,157.70. It was further alleged that the petitioner accessed and operated the Complainant Banks' computerised operating system for committing the aforesaid embezzlement of fund, whereas he was not authorised to make any debit to the customers' accounts towards any charges, except as mandated by Schedule of Charges, mandated by the Complainant Bank. Further, any charge, legitimately debited using the procedure applicable for debit of charges, is directly credited to the Complainant Bank's account. However, in the present case, the petitioner knowingly and deliberately used the HTTUM Menu in the computerized operating system of the Complainant Bank for debiting the charges (which is MONIKA 2024.08.29 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30736-2024 -3- not a standard procedure for debit of charges) in such a manner that he was able to conduit the amounts to the accounts of his choice, instead of the amount automatically getting credited to the Complainant Bank's Account (which would have happened, in case standard procedure had been adopted). On the verification by the System or another officer, of the fraudulent debits initiated by the petitioner, the embezzled funds got credited to the accounts as per the choice of the petitioner, from where he further routed the said amounts to a joint account held in his name with his wife Reena Yadav. Using the same modus-operandi, the petitioner initiated fraudulent debits in the Current account of HUDA Karnal Pinjore EMD Finance beraing Account No.01080200001200, for aggregating to a sum of Rs 9,50,000/-. The said fraudulent transactions to the extent of Rs. 5,50,000/- were verified by the System and one entry of Rs 4,00,000/- was verified through USER ID
- BK166401. The petitioner, not only embezzled funds from the customers' accounts, as mentioned above, but also embezzled funds from the Clearing Collection Account No.01080200001112 of Sector 14, Faridabad of the Complainant Bank, to the extent of Rs.14,30,000/-, which was verified by the System. Further, he transferred the embezzled funds to Account No. 56180100001111 of his wife Reena Yadav. The said bank account is also held in the same branch i.e. Sector 14, Faridabad (now merged with Sector 16 Faridabad Branch). The petitioner used HTTUM menu for initiating the fraudulent debits to various accounts. There were no vouchers found in the Branch Record during the internal investigation. It was further clarified in the FIR that the System allows an operator to debit and post Saving MONIKA 2024.08.29 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30736-2024 -4- Bank/Current Accounts to extent of the transfer power of any Officer/ Special Assistant. The embezzlement of funds was committed during various dates from 08.08.2016 to 22.09.2021. The total amount fraudulently debited to various accounts, as mentioned above, came out to be Rs.88,93,157.70 (from various customers' accounts - Rs.65,13,157.70, Clearing Collection Account No.01080200001112 - Rs.14,30,000.00 and HUDA Karnal Pinjore EMD Finance Account No.01080200001200 - Rs.9,50,000.00). The complainant further alleged that the first revelation of fraud, committed by the petitioner, happened when one customer at Faridabad Main Branch complained that Minimum Balance Charges of Rs.295/- were wrongly debited in his account. The same was examined at Branch Level and suspicious entries came to the knowledge of the Branch. It was found that the false charges, so debited, were credited to the account of one Ram Dayal having Account No.056130100000531 and further transferred to Account No.56180100001111 of Reena Yadav w/o staff member Vineet Yadav (Special Assistant EC No.105662) i.e. the petitioner. The said bank accounts are also held in the same branch i.e. Sector 14, Faridabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2024. The challan is already presented. Investigation is complete. The entire case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but he was implicated after one year of the registration of FIR. It is further submitted that there is process of deduction of the amount, alleged to be illegally deducted by the MONIKA 2024.08.29 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30736-2024 -5- petitioner, and the daily transaction report is checked by the Branch Manager and every year, audit is also conducted by the concerned authority. The petitioner is not the authorized signatory for authorization to be done for KYC of a customer. The employees of the complainant Bank, who verified the KYC of customers, were neither involved in the investigation nor any action has been taken against them. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner, being employee of the Bank, had deducted the amounts from the accounts of the customers under the cover of minimum balance charges, DCARDFEE, SMS Alerts, NACH return charges etc. by using HTTUM menu in the operating system and had embezzled huge amount of Rs.88,93,157.70. If he is released on bail, then he may influence the witnesses or commit similar offence or may even abscond. So, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail.
5. Heard.
6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious. He, being employee of the Bank, had access to the accounts of various customers. Apparently, he devised a novel way and debited amount from the accounts of the customers. The petitioner has not only cheated his employer Bank but also cheated the public and also has shaken the faith of the public in general and customers of the Bank in particular. A person, who is posted in Bank, has higher responsibility to secure the amount of the MONIKA 2024.08.29 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30736-2024 -6- customers. If the amount kept in the bank is debited by the employees of the bank in fraudulent manner from the accounts of the customers, then it would affect not only a particular person but institution of banking as a whole, which is backbone of the economy and prosperity of the country.
7. Keeping in view the gravity of offence and the manner in which huge amount was embezzled, I do not find any ground to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
9. Nothing contained herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 08, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2024.08.29 14:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document