Sandip Sen vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the

lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Vigilance Case No.09 of 2020 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.119 of

2019 registered under sections 419/420/406/ 409/467/468/471/472/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Assistant General Manager

(Audit) of Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused bank officers was instrumental in defrauding the said

Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank of Rs.4,14,30,000/-. It is then submitted that initially in recommendation of institution of the case, the name of the

petitioner was not appearing. Drawing attention of this Court to page no.40 of the brief, it is submitted that the petitioner was entrusted the additional

charge of Assistant General Manager (Audit) of the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank only on 29.08.2018 and he was essentially posted at Ranchi

hence, he has got nothing to do with the business of the bank at Seraikella where the alleged occurrence took place. It is next submitted that co-

accused-Madan Lal Prajapati has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2021 in B.A. No.6672 of 2020. It is

further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable

period of time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the CCTV footage of the bank at Seraikella,

during the course of investigation, which was seized, it was found that the petitioner along with co-accused Manager, was inside the bank and in an

unauthorized manner before the banking hours between 08:30 am to 09:30 am on suspicious manner was seen misusing the identification (Id) of other

bank officers for committing the offence. It is next submitted that the petitioner in an illegal manner as a part of conspiracy with the principal accused-

Sanjay Kumar Dalmiya and handed over the loan cash deposit (LCD) account by misusing the Id. of other officer of the said bank. It is next

submitted that though the comparing of the office book was scheduled to take place on 15.05.2017 but the petitioner postponed the said date to

07.06.2017 and in between the said period on 03.06.2017 and 06.06.2017 in criminal conspiracy the petitioner and the co-accused bank manager,

transferred the said Rs.4,14,30,000/- to different accounts of the principal accused and by which the principal accused-Sanjay Kumar Dalmiya could

transfer Rs.3,94,00,666/- in eleven of his loan cash deposit account. It is then submitted that the prayer for bail of the co-accused-Kaushal Kishore

Sinha @ Kaushal Kumar Sinha has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2021 in B.A. No.10606 of 2020. It is lastly submitted

that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Hence, it is

submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named

petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months as

ordered by this court in order dated 07.01.2021 in B.A. No.10606 of 2020.