High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49916 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.93 of 2020, under Section 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 7/13(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Ikauna, District-Shrawasti is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was the branch manager of P.N.B. Ekauna Branch, Shravasti during 20.06.2017 to 05.05.2018. The present FIR came into existence on 04.04.2020 when one Bheem Kumar was Branch Manager. This FIR was registered by one Rohit Singh against Santosh Kumar. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not even named in the FIR. The entire tirade of allegation is upon Santosh Kumar, Cashier whose bail application is pending. In addition to this, it is contended that no sanction has been accorded to prosecute the applicant in the present case by the Department. Moreover, the departmental inquiry was conducted against the applicant and he was charged that he has failed to provide affected supervision in the state of affair of the branch in question. Thus, he was awarded minor punishment of reduction of one lower stage in time-scale of pay for a period of two years. It is further contended that the present incumbent Bheem Kumar, Manager has already been accorded bail in the present case. The case of applicant too is also on the identical footing. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that during his tenure, syphoning of the funds from the various accounts took place but the author of those syphoning of the funds and misfeasance were made by Santosh Kumar, Cashier who is the main accused of the offence. No doubt that that the applicant has lack in his supervisory capacity as branch manager but there is nothing on record to establish that he was anywhere beneficiary of these syphoning. This misfeasance and bungling said to have taken place in difference accounts of various customers. The bail of the prime accused Santosh Kumar is still pending. Keeping in view that co-accused Bheem Kumar and Santosh Kumar Mishra has already been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2021. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant, Rajneesh Kumar, who is involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Since the has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 31.5.2022 Sumit S Digitally signed by SUMIT SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.03 12:35:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad