Rajdhar vs State of U.P.

U. K. Verma, J.—This is an application for bail in the case crime No. 424 of 1991 under Sections 420,467 and 468, I. P. C., P. S. Pipri District Sonbhadra, wherein the State Bank of India, Pipri Branch, is said to have been cheated by Rajdhar Dubey of the sum of Rs. 55,81,985/. Besides he further is pointed to be involved in another case crime No. 375 of 1991 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. wherein this very applicant almost, during the same State Bank of India, Govindpur branch, a sum of Rs. 12,76,000/.

The prosecution case is that the cheques against which the applicant had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 55,81,985/ had not been passed by the Bank and the applicant had used cheques from the Cheque Book which was earlier reported by him to have been lost. The bank to facilitate the customers had been giving the passed cheques to the drawers in sealed cover to be carried to the other branch of the Bank under the belief that there would be no tampering with the sealed cover and replacement of the cheque passed by the forged ones. The applicant misused the facility. He withdrew the amount of Rs. 55,81,985/ on the basis of substituted cheques in place of the passed cheques on the thirty days enumerated in the F. I. R. Between 26990 and 238 91 as could be gathered from the cheques themselves and the books of account of the Bank. The applicant further is alleged to have admitted in writing the above withdrawals as could be gathered from Annexure I filed with the affidavit of Badri Prasad, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India.

The Counsel for the applicant argued that the State Bank of India, Pipri Branch and the State Bank of India, Govindpur Branch, both had a meagre staff of four or five persons and in the cheating of the Bank they all had actively participated or else the fraudulent withdrawal could not have gone unobjected. So far as Annexure 1 of the counteraffidavit of Badri Prasad, Assistant Manager of the State Bank is concerned, it was argued that it had been obtained from the applicant by third degree methods. He in this connection, tried to show that the applicant in fact had been taken into custody on 5111991 and instead of being produced before the Magistrate on 61191 was kept under wrongful detention between 6111991 and 12111991. This case, according to him, it was last of all contended, was not such wherein bail should be denied for otherwise it would amount to inflictment of punishment before trial as a result of the connivance of the dishonest bank and police officials.

The Counsel for the State Bank of India vehemently argued that the cheating of the huge amount by the applicant was not a matter to be lightly viewed. He tried to show that even if the admission of the applicant in writing was to be excluded there is preponderance of documentary evidence which unresistibly showed that the applicant had cheated the bank. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant about one or two officers of the Bank having been in collusion, according to him, could not justify the grant of bail to the applicant. He further pointed that the men of the applicant had been terrorizing the concerned officer of the Bank not to pursue the case property and efforts had as well been made by them to steal the valuable documents by breaking open the strong room and melting the safe with gaseous device though unsuccessfully. To substantiate those allegations photographs and some reports had been filed. There can be no doubt as follows from the photographs that the strong room of the bank had been broken open and hole had been created in the safe. There is also no reason to suspect the genuineness of the report with regard to threat. There is no allegation it is true specifically against any person who could be safely linked with the applicant. There is however, nothing to suspect at the same time that there are some other cases of the above branches of the State Bank of India wherein the tampering of evidence could have been attempted. The cheating in respect of public money amounting to about fiftysix lacs of rupees deposited in the bank cannot be lightly viewed or else the confidence about the security of the deposits in the bank is likely to be shaken and increasing facilities which are being given by the bank for smooth withdrawal etc. would have to be curtailed leading to general inconvenience. The application for bail in the circumstances of the case is, therefore, rejected. The applicant, however, has a right to expeditious trial and I, therefore deem it fit to observe that the investigations should be completed without unnecessary delay and the trial should also concluded normally within a year. Bail rejected.