Allahabad High Court
Prince Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 25 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2725 of 2023 Applicant :- Prince Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Raj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajal Krishna Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, senior advocate assisted by Sri Kapil Tyagi and Raj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Ajal Krishna, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Prince Kumar in Case Crime No.06 of 2023, under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Nawabganj, District ? Bareilly.
As per F.I.R. of the case, the present accused-applicant was working as Head Cashier in Baroda U.P. Bank, Branch Nawabganj, District Bareilly. A departmental inquiry was conducted by the Bank wherein it was found that the present accused-applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, violating the rules of the Bank and without completing the necessary formalities, committed a fraud to the Bank and by forgery, withdrew Rs.49,26,600/- from 121 Saving Bank Accounts of various account holders of the aforesaid Branch and for this purpose, the inactive Bank accounts were activated in illegal manner. Apart from this, the present accused-applicant along with co-accused Yatendra Kumar and Mahendra Pal also embezzled a cash amount of Rs. 5,07,500/-. In the commission of the crime, some forged cash withdrawal entries were made by the present accused-applicant by misusing the Bank I.D. and Password of another Bank employee of the same Branch namely, Gokaran Singh Sonal, the Assistant Manager. In this way, by playing fraud and forgery, the present accused-applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons was successful in the embezzlement of public money worth Rs.54,34,100/-. F.I.R. in the matter was lodged and investigation started.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. No offence, as alleged in the F.I.R., is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that no Bank money was usurped by the applicant and he has not played any fraud to the Bank. It has been fairly admitted that for the period 1.11.2019 to 2.12.2022, the applicant was working as Head Cashier in the aforesaid Branch, but the cash withdrawal limit of the Head Cashier was limited to Rs.20,000/- only and upper to that limit, the withdrawal could be made only at the level of the Assistant Manager. It is further submitted that through various documents, forged entries were made by the official I.D. and Password of the Assistant Branch Manager Gokaran Singh Sonal. It is further submitted that the dormant account could not be reactivated without verifying the KYC and it is the domain of the concerned Branch Manager only to activate the dormant accounts as per Bank rules and the withdrawal in dormant account and subsequent transfer to operative account can only be allowed after the approval of the Branch Manager. It is further submitted that the present applicant could never misuse the I.D. and Password of the Assistant Branch Manager Gokaran Singh Sonal without his authorization in this respect because Biometric verification is required in order to use the I.D. of any Bank employee. It is next submitted that as per the Bank rules, the staff, whose I.D. and Password have been used in a transaction, shall be solely accountable for the same. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.5,07,500/- was also never misappropriated into his account by the applicant and the reason for this shortfall was that the informant had shown a credit entry of Rs.99,900/- and Rs.5,07,600/- on 1.12.2022, but this amount was not deposited in the cash balance of the Bank. The Bank employee Praveen Kumar Pathak created the transaction of aforesaid two amounts from his own I.D. and the entries thereof were posted and verified by the informant Jagdish Kumar himself from his I.D. and the applicant had no role as such in the creation, posting or verification of the aforesaid credit entries. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that an amount of Rs.3,82,000/- and Rs.1,01,400/- was paid to the respective account holders, who were bearing the cheques. It is further submitted that in the Bank audit, no complaint or discrepancy was found in cash withdrawal between the period 24.8.2020 to 18.11.2022, which is the relevant period as per F.I.R. Apart from these and other several grounds, a prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing the anticipatory bail application have submitted that fraud, as alleged in the F.I.R., has been committed by the accused-applicant, who, taking illegal benefit of his post in the Bank, was successful in committing the entire forgery in connivance with other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering the anticipatory bail application, the meticulous analysis of the evidence available on record is not required. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence has been found regarding the active participation of the accused-applicant in commission of the crime, as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that if any other officer or official of the Bank is found delinquent or defaulter, he may also be arrayed as co-accused into the matter, but the same cannot be made a ground of benefit to be provided to the accused-applicant. It is further stated that an embezzlement of a huge amount of public money is involved in this matter and the accused-applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Since the investigation into the matter is going on and the conspiracy appears to be deep-rooted, the custodial interrogation of the present accused-applicant is necessary.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.
The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 25.4.2023 / ss