IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Ankur Moudgill - Appellant
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh - Respondent
CRM-M-16419-2021
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 408, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 473 - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case involving allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The court considered the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the period of custody. The court also highlighted the need for the petitioner to furnish a declaration of his immovable properties and an undertaking not to transfer the same without obtaining permission from the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for grant of regular bail in a case involving allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The petitioner was accused of being involved in the day-to-day business of the branch and maintaining the account books of the company. The police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner after completing the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deserved grant of regular bail based on the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the period of custody. The court also considered the grant of regular bail to a co-accused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the likely lengthy trial due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Issues: The issues involved the question of whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a case involving allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds, considering the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, and the period of custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant regular bail was based on the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, the role attributed to the petitioner, the period of custody, and the likely lengthy trial due to Covid-19 restrictions. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioner to furnish a declaration of his immovable properties and an undertaking not to transfer the same without obtaining permission from the Court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and furnishing a declaration of his immovable properties and an undertaking not to transfer the same without obtaining permission from the Court.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. - (The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)
1. The petitioner has filed the present (first) petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 70 dated 29.07.2020 registered under Sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station North, Chandigarh to which Sections 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the IPC were added later on.
2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Managing Director of M/s Supreme Securities Limited submitted written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh against Vipin Kumar Dua, Regional Manager; Ankur Moudgill, Assistant Manager (the petitioner); Priya Sharma, Senior Executive and Sukhchain Singh, Field Executive - employees of M/s Supreme Securities Limited working in its Sector 8-C Branch. In the complaint, it has been inter-alia alleged that all the above said four accused persons were responsible for the day to day business of the branch and to maintain the accounts books in due course of the business. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have misappropriated and embezzled amount of, at least, Rs.4,91,61,424/- which amount was in their possession as property of the Company as its employees/agents.
The breakup of the amount of Rs.4,91,61,424/- is (i) Rs.91,97,400/- as foreign currency given to Ashu Forex + (ii) Rs.13,71,750/- outstanding in the books of Ashu Forex + (iii) Rs.20,43,880/- as foreign currency given to Jupiter Forex (net amount receivable as per books of accounts of the company from Jupiter Forex being Rs.20,41,700/-) + (iv) Rs.80,30,692/- withdrawn from ICICI Bank Account + (v) Rs.2,78,07,425/- equivalent to foreign currencies + (vi) Rs.6,96,616/- available as cash in the Branch + (vii) Rs.15,841/- withdrawn from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The complainant accordingly requested for registration of FIR against them under the appropriate penal provisions of law and recovery of the embezzled/misappropriated amount. The police investigated the case and arrested the petitioner on 03.03.2021.
On completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against him.
3. The petitioner being in custody has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail.
4. The petition has been opposed by the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh in terms of affidavit of Sukhraj Katewa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh.
5. The petition has also been opposed by the complainant.
However, no reply has been filed by the complainant.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T., Chandigarh and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and gone through the relevant record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Manager in the Sector 8-C Branch, Chandigarh of the complainant company M/s Supreme Securities Limited. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case being an employee of the company otherwise he has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR. The petitioner is not dealing in any transfer of currency/foreign currency in any manner as the keys of the vault remain with co-accused Priya Sharma which fact can be verified from the keys movement register of the company. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he had ever dealt with the cash of the company or ever received or transferred any foreign currency or cash to anyone or had issued any receipt of the same to anyone. Allegation has been made against the petitioner that he had not visited the branch on 04.05.2020 but it was due to lock down and curfew in Punjab and Chandigarh. Co-accused Vipin Kumar Dua and Priya Sharma had admitted that they both have two keys which are necessary to open the safe vault meaning thereby that they are the only authorised persons to deal in currency and foreign currency and none else. Offences alleged are not made out
Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others vs. State of Punjab : 1980(2) SCC 565
Moti Ram vs. State of M.P. : (1978) 4 SCC 47
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40
Savitri vs. Govind Singh Rawat : 1986(1) RCR(Cri) 83
Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak : 2008(3) RCR(Cri) 842
Shyam Singh vs. State through C.B.I. (SC) : 2006(9) SCC 169
State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21
Suresh and another vs. State of Haryana : 2015(1) RCR(Cri) 148
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.