Court found substantial evidence linking the applicant to embezzlement of institutional funds, warranting denial of anticipatory bail despite claims of false implication.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B - Anticipatory bail - Applicant seeks bail alleging false implication in embezzlement case involving Rs.14 crores from AIIMS - Court finds substantial evidence of conspiracy and forgery involving the applicant as kingpin - Embezzlement not sufficiently disputed by the applicant. (Paras 1, 2, 19)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Granting anticipatory bail requires proving the necessity for custodial interrogation by the State; the applicant's role as Junior Administrative Assistant does not exempt him from culpability given substantial evidence of involvement in alleged embezzlement. (Paras 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Junior Administrative Assistant at AIIMS, contends he has been falsely implicated in embezzling approximately Rs.14 crores from the institution’s funds. He has joined the investigation as per prior orders.

Findings of Court:
The application for anticipatory bail is denied due to substantial evidence indicating the applicant's active role in the embezzlement scheme and the potential flight risk posed.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the credibility of the applicant's defense and the sufficiency of evidence to deny bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the magnitude of the alleged embezzlement and the applicant's established involvement necessitated custodial interrogation, warranting the denial of anticipatory bail.

Result: Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

ORDER

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 139/2021 Police Station EOW, Delhi, registered under Sections 409 /420/467/468/471/120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that he is ready to join the investigation as and when directed by the Court and that though the allegations in the instant case relate to an embezzlement of approximately Rs.14 crores of institutional funds of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre of AIIMS, the applicant is only a Junior Administrative Assistant (Lower Division Clerk) and could not have in any manner embezzled any such massive amount. The applicant has further submitted that pursuant to the directions dated 22.9.2021 in the present bail application, the applicant has joined the investigation and has cooperated in the same.

2. The FIR in the instant case has been registered on the complaint of Dr. Anoop Kumar Daga, Medical Superintendent (Acting) of the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre, AIIMS, on 6.9.2021 in relation to alleged commission of the offence of embezzlement and cheating and forgery and breach of trust by the personnel of the AIIMS during the period 1.8.2019 to 6.9.2021 submitting to the effect that: there had been an embezzlement of government funds detected in the procurement of store items at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi; that at the said centre, gross irregularities were noticed and as per the FIR the estimated embezzlement was more than Rs.5 crores as per a rough estimate.

3. Along with the FIR was annexed the inquiry report of the internal committee of the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre, AIIMS, with the Minutes of the Investigation Committee constituted by the Chief of RPC held on 16.08.2021 regarding irregularities observed in General, Linen & Stationery Store (RPC) wherein it was stated that the Assistant Store Officer (ASO) of the RPC had informed the internal inquiry committee that he had noticed some entries in the E-Hospital software for purchase of different linen items in the General Store in a very high quantity, which did not seem to be as per the consumption pattern in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre, AIIMS (Stock receipt from 1.4.2021 to 14.8.2021) and as per the transaction report downloaded from inventory e-hospital, different linen items like O.T.Gowns, bed sheets, draw sheets, woolen Blankets, D.L.Wrapper, window curtain etc. were issued to the Establishment Section, Room No. 485, Unit 2 Office etc. where generally these items are not issued and that the supply order mentioned in the transaction report qua the items purchased were not ordered in the supply order register maintained in the store section of the RPC for allotting the supply order numbers. The Assistant Store Officer of the RPC had further informed that he had not signed the purchase proformas uploaded in the Inventory Management Software maintained at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre, AIIMS, for the items to be procured through R/C.

4. The Inquiry Committee members are indicated to have perused the documents produced by the Assistant Store Officer of the RPC and observed that a very high number of linen articles had been issued to the areas, i.e., Establishment Section, Room No.485, Unit 2 Office and that the Committee called the Administrative Officer Mrs. Saroj Pant (Establishment) to verify the indent No. 195 dated 18.6.2021 pertaining to the Establishment Section and she denied issuance of any such indent number from the Establishment Section.

5. As per the inquiry, Sh. Naveen Kumar Personal Assistant posted at Room No. 485 & Unit 2 is also stated to have been called to ascertain the genuineness of indent No. 513, 797,862, 1058, 1078, 288 and he too denied raising those indents. The applicant herein posted as a Junior Administrative Assistant posted in the General, Linen & Stationery store was called to produce the original purchas