Rahish Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, Una. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was the Branch Manager of the informant company. The Loan Officer/Executive and Recovery Officers were also employed in the Branch. The petitioner was to approve the loan proposal submitted by the Loan Officer/Executive. He worked for seven years with the informant company and thereafter joined a private bank in Chandigarh. The informant company did not pay the full wages and other benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Labour Officer, Una. The informant company filed a false complaint for pressurizing the petitioner to drop his claim. The loans mentioned in the FIR were dealt with by the Loan Executives/Officials. The petitioner had no direct link or contact with any loanee. The petitioner has been in custody since 3.11.2023. The challan has been filed and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence the petition.

The police filed a status report asserting that the Senior Manager (Legal) filed a complaint before the police asserting that the informant Fusion Micro Finance Limited, is a non-banking financial company registered with the Reserve Bank of India. It provides financial services to women in rural and urban areas through its various branches. The petitioner- accused was working as a Branch Manager at the Una Branch. He was entrusted to run the branch, manage the loan portfolio and carry out regular field visits to detect any employee-related fraud. The petitioner was transferred to the Daulatpur branch as his activities were found to be suspicious. It was found on 30.8.2022 that the loan was disbursed to five customers through NEFT, however, the accused/petitioner informed the company that NEFT was cancelled and the loan was disbursed in cash. An amount of Rs. 27,898/- could not be recovered. He was asked to join the investigation to enquire about cash deviation; however, he failed to do so. It was also found that 52 loans were sanctioned at Una Branch by the accused based on manipulated KYCs/documents. Some of the loanees stated that they had not received the amount, whereas it was shown to be disbursed. They stated that their signatures on the disbursement slip were forged. The petitioner claimed that he had deposited Rs. 1,09,000/- but no receipt was issued. The petitioner disclosed that the accused/petitioner had only deposited Rs. 26,200/- and not Rs. 1,09,000/- in the Kiosk. Budh Singh, Relationship Officer stated that he had handed over a sum of Rs. 2089/-, however, the petitioner deposited only Rs. 1146/- in the loan account of Ms. Parminder Kaur. The police registered the FIR and seized the record. The police arrested the petitioner. The challan has been prepared and presented before the Court. The case was listed for service on 14.2.2024. The petitioner had applied for interim bail which was allowed and the petitioner surrendered after the expiry of the bail.

I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and the challan has been filed before the Court. The prosecution case is based upon the documents collected by the Investigating Agency and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is employed in a private bank in Chandigarh and there is no chance of his absconding. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of an economic offence which is committed after due deliberation. The petitioner had forged various documents to misappropriate the money. Keeping in view the nature of the crime, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of granting bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’

As per the status report, all the irregularities came to the notice after the resignation of the petitioner. The prosecution case is based upon the record maintained in the Branch and since the petitioner has resigned and does not have any access to the record; therefore, he is not in a position to tamper with the same.

The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court; therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the investigation as well.

The petitioner has been in custody since November 2023. The status report shows that five days’ interim bail was granted to the petitioner and he surrendered after the expiry of the bail period, which shows that his plea that he would not abscond is duly corroborated by his conduct.

The petitioner has filed the certificate of appreciation issued by Fusion Micro Finance Limited on the completion of three years and five years of continuous service which shows that the petitioner was appreciated while he was serving in the informant company. The petitioner specifically asserted that he had raised a labour dispute with the Labour Inspector but his dues were not paid after which the FIR was lodged. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report filed by the police. Hence, the same has to be accepted as correct at this stage.

The petitioner asserted that he is employed as a Manager at RBL Bank, Chandigarh. This was not stated to be false, which means that the petitioner is in the job and there is no chance of his absconding. Thus, his presence can be ensured during the trial even if he is released on bail.

In view of the above, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so by means of a written hukamnama.

(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.