Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Priya Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh - Respondent
CRM-M-21050-2021
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 408, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 473 - The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the nature and gravity of the charges, the duty of the court to ascertain tangible material to show the commission of a crime, and the obligation of the accused to restitution of moveable/immovable property illegally/fraudulently received or forcibly taken/occupied. The court also emphasized the need for the accused to disclose moveable and immovable properties/assets and submit an undertaking not to fraudulently transfer them. The decision was influenced by the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, and the period of custody, as well as the grant of bail to a co-accused and the likely lengthy trial due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for grant of regular bail in a case involving charges of embezzlement and misappropriation of a substantial amount of money. The petitioner argued that the allegations against her were doubtful due to the involvement of other individuals and internal management conflicts. The prosecution opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner's involvement in the offences and the gravity of the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deserved grant of regular bail, considering the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, period of custody, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The court imposed the condition of the petitioner furnishing a declaration of her immovable properties and an undertaking not to transfer them without court permission.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in embezzlement and misappropriation, the nature and gravity of the charges, and the question of granting regular bail based on the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, period of custody, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The court also emphasized the need for the accused to disclose moveable and immovable properties/assets and submit an undertaking not to fraudulently transfer them.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to the condition of furnishing a declaration of her immovable properties and an undertaking not to transfer them 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; Priya Sharma, Senior Executive (the petitioner) 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 14.01.2021. However, no recovery could be made from her. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against her.
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 Uday Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh.
5. The petition has also been opposed by the complainant in terms of reply dated 04.07.2021 filed by the complainant.
6. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the complainant.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T., Chandigarh and learned Counsel for the complainant and gone through the relevant record.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was employed as Senior Executive in the Sector 8-C Branch, Chandigarh of the complainant company M/s Supreme securities Limited. The work of the petitioner was to see front office for the direct clients visiting the office. The petitioner was having one key of the locker but one key of the locker was with Sukhchain Singh and second set of keys of the locker was with Manoj Bhalla and Manoj Bhalla could open the safe without knowledge of the petitioner which makes the allegation of embezzlement by the petitioner doubtful. All the e- mails were generated in the name of the petitioner due to computer software and the e-mail ID and password were known to other staff members and e-mails were received and sent by them in the name of the petitioner. The bank statements sent were computer generated statements and the petitioner could not be attributed responsibility for the same being false. The accounts of the branch were audited as per RBI guidelines and no irregularities were found at the time of such audits. The head office had the access
AI
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
