Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Navin Kumar Sinha - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation – Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 7190 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2024
[ANTICIPATORY BAIL] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRUPTION] - [Sections 438, 440 of CrPC; Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC; Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] - [The court discussed the provisions of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. It highlighted the serious nature of the allegations under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, interpreting these laws as essential tools to combat corruption among public servants. The court concluded that the applicant's involvement in a criminal conspiracy and fraudulent activities warranted the denial of anticipatory bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving allegations of a criminal conspiracy to commit cheating and corruption, where significant amounts were fraudulently withdrawn from government accounts by manipulating banking software and processes. The applicant, a former Postmaster, was accused of facilitating these transactions by allowing unauthorized access to banking systems.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the applicant were serious and involved a well-organized scheme of corruption. It determined that the applicant's actions, including allowing unauthorized personnel to access sensitive banking systems, constituted a prima facie case for the charges under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious allegations of corruption and conspiracy against him, and whether the principle of parity could be applied based on the bail granted to a co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that the nature and gravity of the accusations must be carefully considered. It emphasized that the principle of parity does not apply if the facts and roles of the accused differ significantly.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such relief.
ORDER :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
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), 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 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 (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 court established that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption, and that the principle of ....
The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail, the delicate balance between individual liberty and the requirements of a thorough investigation, and ....
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings, allowing for bail grants based on case-specific circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
