The gravity of the charges and the need for custodial interrogation can be decisive factors in the court's decision on granting bail.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail with respect to FIR No. 98/2016, dated 03.06.2016, registered under Sections 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66C of the IT Act at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report, which has been filed by the learned Deputy Advocate General as well as records of the case produced by the State.

3. A perusal of the records demonstrate that allegations against the accused in the said FIR, which also includes the present petitioner, is of misappropriation of public money/property of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nurpur by making illegal transactions in a fraudulent manner with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the accused, as a result of a conspiracy hatched in this regard amongst them. The alleged fraudulent transactions are to the tune of Rs.58,50,000/-, which in my considered view, is a huge amount. As per the State, one of accused happens to be an employee of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., who fraudulently withdrew amount from the bank accounts of different account holders of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank of the branch concerned by making fraudulent entries and by operating computer system of Assistant General Manager, Nurpur and the money so withdrawn was deposited in conspiracy with the other co-accused in their bank accounts with the intention to misappropriate the same, which includes the present petitioner also.

4. Taking into consideration the gravity of the charges which have been levelled against the accused, which includes the present petitioner and the contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation and further the fact that other co-accused are still to be arrested, who as per the status report filed, are evading their arrest, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail in the present case. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

5. Before parting with the judgment, it is pertinent to add that this Court expresses its displeasure on the conduct of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments. Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner openly stated in the Court, obviously with an intent to browbeat the Court that if bail is not granted to the petitioner by this Court then ‘it will send a wrong message to the society’. This Court takes strong exception to the same. Filing a petition for grant of bail is statutory right of a party. Petitioner, who files such petition, has the legal right to make all submissions to put forth his cause within the four corners of law, however, this does not confer an unfettered right upon the party/learned counsel representing the party to make uncalled for comments if the Court is not finding favour with its submissions. Whether bail is to be granted or not in a particular case is a decision which a Court has to make taking into consideration all aspects of the matter before it. Persuasion to grant bail is the right of the applicant, however, right of persuasion cannot be equated with an arrogant right of submitting in a Court of law whatsoever a learned counsel representing the party feels like, with the intent to both browbeat the Judge as well as to play to the gallery. Court deprecates this kind of practice.