Jharkhand High Court
Navin Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of ... on 12 April, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7190 of 2023
-----
Navin Kumar Sinha, aged about 65 years, son of late Sharda Prasad, resident of 49, Baksidih, Baksidih Road, P.O.& P.S- Baksidih, District-, District Giridih ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
------
th Order No. 04/Dated 12 April, 2024
1. Apprehending arrest, the applicant herein seeks anticipatory bail the instant application filed under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with R.C. case no.02(A)/21(D) (corresponding to R.C.02(A)/2021-D) registered under Sections 120-B and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short Act, 1988). Facts
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present application is that on the reliable source information has been received in the Office of SP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, alleging that the accused persons namely (1) Md. Altaf, the then APM Counter (SB), Giridih Head Post Office, (2) Shashi Bhushan Kumar, the then APM Counter (SB), 1 Giridih Head Post Office, (3) Arvind Kumar Pandey, the then Gramin Dak Sewak, BPM Khurjio BO A/c with Palonjila SO, Giridih Division, Giridih, (4) Sri Krishna Kumar Das, the then Gramin Dak Sevak, Shirampur Colliery BO in A/c with Giridih Town SO, under Giridih Head Post Office, (5) Sri Trilochan Singh, (Private person), (6) Sri Navin Kumar, (private person) (7) Sri Ratan Kumar Pathak, (private persons) had entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and other unknown during the period 2016-2019 with an intention to commit the offences of cheating and criminal misconduct.
3. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they dishonestly and fraudulently made credit entries of huge amounts on various dates during the period 2016-2019 by using details of demand drafts / cheques (already used & paid by the Treasury of Giridih Head Post Office) into 03 dubious Savings Bank Accounts of Giridih Head Post Office and subsequently those amounts were fraudulently withdrawn in cash etc. on different dates and double payments against the same demand drafts/ cheques were made causing wrongful loss to the Postal Department of Giridih.
4. It has been alleged that fraudulent deposits/ withdrawals were made in the three SB accounts opened at 2 Giridih HO without any corresponding credit/debit entries in the account of Giridih HO.
5. It has further been alleged that said deposit were credited in said three accounts through those demand drafts which were already used / charged by Treasury of Giridih HO for making payment to respective Sub-Offices where the demand drafts were actually received in and meant for payment to actual beneficiaries. Thus, double payments against the same Demand Drafts were made and caused wrongful loss to the Postal Department of Giridih.
6. Subsequently, fraudulent withdrawals to the tune of Rs.88,63,781/- were made from the said three Savings accounts on different dates and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.88,63,781/- to Postal Department and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
7. The above allegations, prima facie, disclose commission of cognizable offences on the part of said accused public servants which are punishable under Sections 120B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C. Act 2018).
8. Hence, a Regular Case was registered against (1) Md. Altaf, (2) Shashi Bhushan Kumar (3) Arvind Kumar Pandey, (4) Sri Krishna Kumar Das (5) Sri Trilochan Singh 3 (6) Sri Navin Kumar, (private person), (7) Sri Ratan Kumar Pathak, (private persons) and unknown others under Section 120B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C. Act 2018).
9. After investigation charge-sheet vide charge-sheet no. 05 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022 was submitted against the accused persons including the present petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 420 and 477-A of IPC Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C. Act 2018). The present petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No-13 (A-13) in the aforesaid charge-sheet.
10. It is alleged against the petitioner that he being posted as the Postmaster, HO Giridih, from 16.03.2011 to 31.03.2018, was responsible for supervision of all works of Giridih HPO. It is alleged against the petitioner that in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, allowed Arvind Kumar Pandey, Grameen Dak Sevak to work in Finacle Software system of Core Banking Solution (CBS) violating the norms of postal department because said Arvind Kumar Pandey, was not entitled to work in Finacle Software System as Grameen Dak Sevak.
4
11. It is further alleged that he dishonestly and fraudulently in conspiracy with other accused, facilitated transaction of money from the Government account to the account of accused private persons by not incorporating all correct figures of amount of transaction in saving Bank head in HO summary of Giridih Head post office on various dates.
12. In the backdrop of the submission of the charge- sheet, the applicant, apprehending his arrest had moved for grant of anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No. 233 of 2023, however the same was rejected vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed.
Submissions
13. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has already retired having unblemished service record and he became victim of circumstances and has been made escape goat in this case.
14. It is further contended that applicant never engaged accused Arbind Kumar Pandey (Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS)) in dealing with the mail ID of Post Master Giridih H.O., it was sent by System Administrator through mail ID of Post 5 Master Giridih which can be ascertained for another employee.
15. It is further submitted that the Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) is attached to Head Quarter by the order of Superintendent of Post Office, so petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged offence.
16. Further, during relevant period, no difference in treasury cash balance was ever found and the co-accused Md. Altaf, APM SB counter was the in-charge of counter verification to the tune of Rs 5,000/- and to daily report to treasury on System.
17. As such the entire prosecution case so far applicant is concerned is based upon false and frivolous grounds.
18. Further, learned counsel for the applicant, to buttress his argument, has relied upon the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the question of personal liberty is the paramount consideration being the fundamental right and even in a case of criminal nature, consideration is to be given before snatching the personal liberty of the person concerned as granted under Article 21 of the constitution of India.
6
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground of parity since anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused persons, namely, Ajit Kumar Lall @ Ajit Kumar Lal has been allowed vide order dated 12.10.2023 passed in A.B.A No. 6643 of 2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
20. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the case is made out for exercising the powers vested with the Court for granting pre-arrest bail and accordingly, the instant application may be allowed.
21. Per contra, Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party CBI, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail contending that the involvement of the applicant in the instant case is established and considering the seriousness of the offence and in the interest of the society at large, this application may not be allowed.
22. It has further been submitted that the instant case is about dishonest and illegal withdrawal of Government money from alleged fake saving accounts of Giridih Town SO by using the details of already used demand drafts/cheques and the applicant being the Postmaster was duty bound to protect the public money but instead of 7 doing his duty, he in connivance with other accused person, namely, Arvind Kumar Pandey, has facilitated transaction of money from the Government account to the account of accused private persons by not incorporating all correct figures of amount of transaction in Saving Bank head in HO summary of Giridih Head Post Office on various dates.
23. The aforesaid facts prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences by the applicant which is punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
24. The ground, therefore, has been taken that since the ground of parity is being taken on behalf of the applicant then the requirement will be to consider the specific accusation against the present applicant vis-a-vis the other accused person namely Ajit Kumar Lall @ Ajit Kumar Lal with whom parity is claimed.
25. In the aforesaid premises, she submitted that the instant application is having no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Analysis
26. This Court has carefully analysed the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire record.
8
27. Before adverting to the issue raised by the respective parties, this Court deems it fit and proper to consider the settled law with respect to granting and/or refusing the anticipatory bail.
28. It has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in its various pronouncements that the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is in extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only and therefore, the anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, is interference in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be cautious while exercising such powers.
29. It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court.
30. It is pertinent to mention here that the law on grant of anticipatory bail has been summed up by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre vs. state of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 9 after due deliberation on the parameters as evolved by the Constitution Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is being quoted hereunder:-
"111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;10
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in 11 nature because it is difficult to clearly visualise all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available."
31. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of decisions, has categorically held that the judicial discretion of the Court while considering the anticipatory bail shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another reported 12 in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under:
"24. The time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature."
33. It is evident from the record that the allegation against the petitioner is also levelled under various provisions of the Act 1988, as such, at this juncture this Court thinks it fit and proper to discuss the object and purpose of the Act 1988.
34. Object of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant among the public servants. It is a 13 social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to address its object.
35. In State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 88, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was to make effective provisions for prevention of bribe and corruption amongst public servants. It has been further held that it is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servants and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused.
36. In the light of aforesaid principles and as per the object of the Act 1988, it may be inferred that it is the duty of the Court that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say, in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64.
14
37. In light of the aforesaid legal proposition and taking into consideration the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this court is now adverting to the facts of the present case to reach out the conclusion that the case of pre-arrest bail for the applicant is made out or not.
38. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the CBI, ACB Dhanbad registered a criminal case on 10.08.2021 under Sections 120 B read with Section 420 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (a) of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C Act 2018) against accused persons.
39. It is evident from record that Navin Kumar Sinha (accused-applicant) was posted in Head Post Office, Giridih as Postmaster during the relevant period.
40. During investigation it is revealed that the present applicant while functioning as the Post Master, Giridih Head Post during the period 16.03.2011 to 31.08.2018 was in-charge of said office and responsible for general supervision of all work Giridih head post office (HPO).
41. He was responsible for Bank and treasury transaction and to see that these transactions are incorporated in the HO summary, maintenance of the 15 Nominal Roll, maintenance of password protection register and proper function of all computer system and server.
42. He was also the joint custodian of cash and stamps in treasury and he had bounden duty to compare the entries between the items of Savings Bank deposits and withdrawal in the Head Office Summary with the daily totals of the corresponding Head Office Transactions in the Savings Bank Journals.
43. During investigation it has come that the present applicant in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, allowed the co-accused person namely Arvind Kumar Pandey, GDS to work in Finacle Software system of Core Banking Solution (CBS) violating the norms of postal department because other co-accused Arvind Kumar Pandey was not entitled to work in Finacle System being a Gramin Dak Sewak, only Postal Assistant and above can do this work.
44. It is revealed that the present applicant dishonestly submitted wrong information to Circle Office of Post Offices, Ranchi on 05.04.2016 for arranging Finacle user ID for accused Arvind Kumar Pandey by intentionally mentioning designation of Arvind Kumar Pandey as Postal Assistant instead of true designation of Gramin Dak Sewak for facilitating the offence of fraudulent transaction by Arvind Kumar Pandey by entering into Finacle System of CBS in 16 Giridih Head Post Office through the user ID of accused Arvind Kumar Pandey and as per the investigation Arvind Kumar Pandey is the mastermind of the alleged fraud.
45. Thus prima-facie it appears from the records of investigation that the present applicant Navin Kumar Sinha dishonestly and fraudulently and in conspiracy with other accused, facilitated transaction of money from the Government account to account of accused private persons by not incorporating all correct figures of amount of transaction in Saving Bank head in HO summary of Giridih Head Post Office on various dates and he, in conspiracy with other accused, incorporated the amount of figure in HO summary on various dates which were different from the figures/amount of consolidated LOT of the APM (SB) accounts, whereas as per norms both the figures must be same.
46. Further, it appears that he in conspiracy with other accused, also facilitated fraudulent transaction of money from Government account to the account of private accused persons by not taking any action against the report of SBCO branch made through Voucher Submission Register and Hand to Hand register.
47. Thus, prima-facie it appears that Navin Kumar Sinha (accused- petitioner) with malafide intention had not 17 maintained password protection register in Giridih Head Post Office during material period, which resulted into misuse of password and user ID of postal officials by accused Arvind Kumar Pandey.
48. Thus, the aforesaid facts prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (As Amended by P.C. Act 2018) by the present applicant.
Issue of Parity
49. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied.
50. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the 18 judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :
(SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity.
It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge- sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 19 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22- 10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra), at paragraph-18, has held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.
52. It has further been held in the paragraph 19 of the said judgment that the principle of parity is to be applied 20 in the matter of bail but equally it has been laid down therein that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper, then, merely because the co- accused person has been directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality. For ready reference, relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraph-19, of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."
53. Now this court is adverting into facts of instant case to decide the issue of parity in the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal ratio and further taking into consideration the aforesaid settled position of law, thinks fit to refer herein 21 distinguishable facts in the case of present petitioner to that the case of Ajit Kumar Lal.
54. This Court needs to go through the imputation of allegation against the Ajit Kumar Lall Ajit Kumar Lal, in the charge-sheet which has been appended to the instant petition.
55. The main allegation against the Ajit Kumar Lal with whom parity is claimed is that he, while working as Assistant Post Master (APM) from January 2016 to 31.01.2018 at Giridih Post Office, abused his official position/allowed to misuse his user ID: LALAJITKUMAR for role of Supervisor (Verifier) in Finacle System of CBS of Giridih HPO for fraudulent transaction of Rs 3,74,924/- from the account No. 815301000125 of the Post Master, Giridih HPO into 02 accounts of private person in 06 Instances on various dates without any supporting voucher.
56. But the allegation against the present applicant is entirely different and as per the charge-sheet it is evident that the present applicant in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, allowed the co-accused person namely Arvind Kumar Pandey, GDS to work in Finacle Software system of Core Banking Solution (CBS) violating the norms of postal department because other co-accused Arvind Kumar Pandey was not entitled to work in Finacle System being a Gramin 22 Dak Sewak, only Postal Assistant and above can do this work.
57. Further, the present applicant dishonestly submitted wrong information to Circle Office of Post Offices, Ranchi on 05.04.2016 for arranging Finacle user ID for accused Arvind Kumar Pandey by intentionally mentioning designation of Arvind Kumar Pandey as Postal Assistant instead of true designation of Gramin Dak Sewak for facilitating the offence of fraudulent transaction by Arvind Kumar Pandey by entering into Finacle System of CBS in Giridih Head Post Office through the user ID of accused Arvind Kumar Pandey and as per the investigation Arvind Kumar Pandey is the master mind of the alleged fraud.
58. Therefore, it is evident from the discussion as made above that the case of the present applicant is different to that of the said Ajit Kumar Lall @ Ajit Kumar Lal as per the allegation.
59. Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) that the benefit of parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the applicant, is identical to the persons with whom parity is being claimed.
23
60. This Court, on the basis of the discussion of the involvement of the applicant, vis-à-vis, the other co-accused persons, is of the view that the case of the present applicant is quite distinguishable to that of the case of Ajit Kumar Lal.
61. Otherwise also, it needs to refer herein by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) that if the benefit of bail has been granted by a Court that appears to be contrary to the material collected in course of investigation then applying the principle that Article 14 does not envisages negative equality, this Court, therefore, is of the view taking into consideration the allegation against Ajit Kumar Lall @ Ajit Kumar Lal that it is not a fit case, merely because Ajit Kumar Lall @ Ajit Kumar Lal has been granted anticipatory bail, the present applicant may also be released from judicial custody, as such, the said benefit is not fit to be granted.
62. Further the learned counsel for the applicant has put reliance upon the judgment as rendered by the hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Supra) and raised the question of snatching away the personal liberty of the accused person but it is the considered view of this Court that grant or refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the 24 facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another (Supra).
63. Thus, this Court by referring to the materials placed on record by the CBI is of the considered view that prima facie, the allegations against the present applicant cannot be brushed aside lightly and also there appears to be a well-organised syndicate comprising various officials of the postal Department who are in tandem and, as such, this type of nexus needs to be unearthed.
64. In the facts of present case, it is useful to refer to and rely on the case of Niranjan Hem Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. The Apex Court further observed that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people 25 believing in honesty and history records with agony how they have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with constitutional morality. The emphasis was on intolerance to any kind of corruption bereft of its degree.
65. Further in Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.B.I reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court observed that corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the 1988 Act.
66. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another (Supra) has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under:-
"31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some 26 chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious."
Conclusion
67. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, the applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.
68. In the result, the instant application is hereby rejected.
69. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/A.F.R. 27