Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Anil Kumar Nanda – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 36197 of 2021
Decided on : 12-09-2022
BAIL - ECONOMIC OFFENCES - IPC 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 204, 120 B, IT Act 66 C, 66 D - The court discussed the legal provisions under IPC and IT Act, emphasizing the power of a Magistrate to grant bail for offences triable by them, and the need to consider the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, and the accused's conduct in economic offences. The court allowed bail considering the applicant's clean antecedents, surrender, prolonged incarceration, termination of services, and the triable nature of the offences.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving allegations of embezzlement and forgery in a bank, emphasizing his innocence and false implication. The bank alleged embezzlement of a substantial amount and highlighted the seriousness of economic offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had no criminal history, surrendered voluntarily, and had been incarcerated for over 15 months. It emphasized the triable nature of the offences and the applicant's termination from service, concluding that he was entitled to bail.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the applicant's innocence, false implication, and entitlement to bail in economic offences, considering the severity of the allegations and the legal framework for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the applicant's clean antecedents, voluntary surrender, prolonged incarceration, termination of services, and the triable nature of the offences under IPC and IT Act. It emphasized the need to consider the severity of punishment, accused's conduct, and the nature of accusations in economic offences.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant with specific conditions to ensure non-tampering with evidence and non-influence of witnesses.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
1. Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Mr. Mrityunjay Dwivedi, Advocates, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. D.K. Srivastava, Advocate, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar Lal and Mr. Kundan Rai, Advocates, the learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No. 146 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 204, 120 B of I.P.C. and Sections 66 C and 66 D of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Jawan, District Aligarh.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 07.05.2019 lodged by a Junior Branch Manager of Zila Sahkari Bank Private Limited Aligarh against eight named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that a three member committee had made an enquiry and submitted a report dated 15.07.2019, as per which the accused persons had made an embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 11,83,35,436.27/-.
4. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant had been transferred from the concerned branch in September 2015 and the FIR has been lodged on 07.05.2019 after an inordinate delay whereas the bank’s accounts are audited every year; that the FIR does not make any mention of the dates during which the alleged fraudulent transactions took place; that it has wrongly been mentioned in the enquiry report as also in the FIR that the amount of Rs. 11,83,35,000/-has been embezzled; that a committee constituted by the bank has re-examined the matter and had issued a report dated 24.02.2020 stating that the balance as on 30.08.2014 was Rs. 4.15 Crores only.
5. It has further been stated in the affidavit that during pendency of the criminal case, the bank has recovered a sum of Rs.2,18,00,000/-till 31.03.2019 from the members who had taken loans from the bank and, therefore, it cannot be said that the entire amount of loan was embezzled. The affidavit further states that the bank does not give any loan to the farmers directly. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the services of the applicant have already been terminated by means of a resolution dated 15-06-2020 passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank.
6. The affidavit further asserts that the applicant has not done any embezzlement or tampering of documents; that the applicant belongs to a respectable family; that he has clean antecedents and he was not arrested by the police, rather he had surrendered in the Court on 22.06.2021 and since then he is languishing in jail and a charge sheet has been submitted on 13.07.2021. The affidavit contains an undertaking that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond and he will not tamper with the evidence.
7. The informant-bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that the applicant was posted as the Branch Manager in Kasimpur Branch during the period 26-07-2006 to 07-09-2012 and 28-09-2012 to 06-09-2015, along with two cashiers Sanjay Kumar Maurya and Brijesh Awasthi, who have also been made accused in the present case. During this period, loans of Rs.9,52,04,742/-were disbursed to fake persons. On 28.06.2018, a complaint was made to the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of District Cooperative Bank, Aligarh that the applicant had caused a loss of Rupees 03 Crores to the bank by making forgeries in collusion with some employees of the bank and Cooperative Societies. Upon the aforesaid complaint, the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the bank had constituted a three member enquiry committee and on 27.02.2019, the three member committee submitted a report alleging embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 11,83,35,436.2 and that many of the farmers were not found to be residents of the villages mentioned in their respective applications and it appeared that the loans
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the gravity of the offence is an aspect to be kept in view by the Court. The c....
The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the decision to grant bail should consider the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment.
Bail – On the basis of charges framed, court is only required to ascertain nature of crime – Court has not to adjudicate on elements of crime or charges to find out its nature, extent and depth.
Bail in economic offences should be denied to protect the larger public and state interest and prevent tampering with witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of economic offences and the documentary nature of evidence should be considered while deciding bail applications, and deprivation....
The gravity of an offence is a factor to be considered when granting bail, but it is not the only criterion. Other factors to be considered include the stage of the investigation, the nature of the e....
The court balanced the accused's right to a speedy trial and personal liberty with the gravity of the accusations and the interest of the society, and granted bail with stringent conditions.
The judgment established the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the ....
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
