AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon. Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare
These bunch of applications are taken up together and this common order shall govern all the cases. By this application filed u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. the applicants Nand Kumar Banhani, Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Abdul Moid Khan, Usha, Mohd. Akhtar Majal Khan & Rajesh Kumar Prajapati have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Criminal Case No. 476/2011 registered by police station Kotwali, Mhow, Distt. Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B)/ 34 of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicants have vehemently urged the fact that all the applicants are on various positions in the service of Central Bank of India at Mhow and report was lodged by the then Manager Shri Prasant Kumar Jain at Police Station Kotwali, Mhow that one Mr. Rajesh Neem an accountant in the said Bank, had transferred from N.B.O. A/c of Bank a sum of Rs.5 Crores in the name of his wife Anjana Neem and nephew Mukesh Neem and himself. The said transfer took place beginning from the year 2008. On an investigation being made, it was alleged that between the month of November, 2008 and May 2011, accused Rajesh Neem somehow procured the passwords the present applicants or hacked them in an unauthorised manner and from several accounts of the Bank transferred the money to his name and that of his wife and nephew from the accounts in the same Bank. The alleged act continued up to 19.05.2011 and thereafter the aforesaid report was filed by Shri Prasant Kumar Jain. The police registered a case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120(B)/ 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Money Laundering Act and Section 66 of the B.D.E.I.T. Act, 2000 only against Rajesh Neem, Anjna Neem and Mukesh Neem. Thereafter the police also filed the charge-sheet against the present applicants and hence the present application u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants have vehemently urged the fact that there are two sets of accused in the case; one Rajesh Neem, Anjana Neem and Mukesh Neem and in the other the present applicants. Whereas the main accused Rajesh neem is alleged to have committed the entire offence and transferred the money. The present applicants are herein employees of the Bank, whose password has been utilised by the said Rajesh Neem and only on this basis, the applicants have been falsely implicated. Counsel urged that the FIR was also delayed and filed only on 28.05.2011, whereas the incident has occurred since the year 2008. More importantly Counsel submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that even a single paisa was transferred into the account of any of the present applicants and the prosecuting agency i.e. police also have discovered as is evident, from the challan papers, that the entire money was invested by the said Rajesh Neem in the share market and the present applicants are merely being made the witnesses in the charge sheet. Counsel submits that merely because the code or the secret password of the applicants have been used, the police are unnecessarily causing harassment to the present applicants. Counsel urged that they have not been named in the FIR and there is not a single voucher which names any of the present applicants as required for the transfer of the money. No evidence is available in the physical form against any of the present applicants and only because the applicants were linked to the main accused, false allegations have been made against them as being involved in the offence.
Counsel further submitted that the complainant P.K. Jain himself had also been made an accused and has also got bail from the Court and under the circumstances, the applicants are also entitled to the same. More importantly, Counsel submitted that co-accused Prasant Kumar Jain and Anil Limya have got anticipatory bail in M. Cr.C. No. 4584/12 & 5155/12 under the identical set of circumstances and on the grounds of parity also, the applicants were entitled to the same.
Per contra Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the applications primarily because the investigation in the case is not complete according to him. Looking to the colossal amount of money that has been transferred surreptitiously by the main accused Rajesh Neem, Counsel for the State submitted that it could not have been done without the active assistance and aid of the present applicants. If the procedure of the Bank is considered, Counsel submitted that by way of precaution, the system of maker and chequer is used by the Bank and any transaction is checked after it is made and contentions signatures of at least two persons despite which the accused Rajesh Neem has been able to transfer sum of Rs.5 Crores and above from various accounts and hence Counsel submitted that the applicants are not so innocent as they are pretending. He was, however, unable to counter the fact under the same set of circumstances Prasant Kumar and Anil Limya have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. However, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of the allegations, it would have been appropriate to have heard the Bank''s side of the case also. Hence notice was issued by this Court, which has returned unserved and in this light considering the urgency of the anticipatory bail application, they were taken up for hearing. It appears that the Bank has only made a half-hearted attempt to make complaint against its own employees and is not willing to take categoric stand and lay the blame on the appropriate employees.
Considering the case of the present applicants, I find that there is no other evidence on record except allegations that their passwords have been utilised by the main accused Rajesh Neem. It would be crucial to make any further comments regarding the evidence since the case is still at the stage of investigation. Considering the magnitude of the case and the time that is likely to be taken for the investigation and the trial, I find that the application for anticipatory bail needs to be allowed on this ground as well as on the grounds of parity since Prasant Kumar and Anil Limya have already been granted anticipatory bail. In this light, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
It is directed that subject to joining the investigation, and in the event of his arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/-each with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned, on the condition in Section 438(3) of Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid directions, the applications are hereby allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Original order is retained in M.Cr.C. No.5619/2012 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. Nos.6223/12, 6190/12, 4333/12, 5272/12 and 4789/12.