Satish Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sushil Kukreja, J

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail in case FIR No.86 of 2022, dated 26.07.2022, under Sections 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘PC Act’), registered at Police Station Sadar Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

Brief facts of the case, as per the status report filed by the respondent-State are that on 26.07.2022, police received a letter alongwith the annexures, from the office of District Treasury Officer (DTO), Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., praying therein to lodge a criminal case/FIR against Satish Kumar, Deputy Director (HIPA), the then DTO (Nahan) (petitioner herein) as he had misappropriated/embezzled a sum of Rs.1.69 Crore from the Government treasury. It was averred in the aforesaid letter that as per the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to Special Secretary (Finance)-cum Director, Treasuries, Accounts & Lotteries, the petitioner had made multiple transactions/ transfer of amount from the accounts of Pension Payment Orders (PPO) to multiple bank accounts maintained in his own name as well as in the name of his family members. As per the preliminary status report, during his tenure as DTO, Nahan, the petitioner had illegally transferred a sum of Rs.9,66,519/- from the PPO account to Bank Account No.11508847880, SBI Pachhad, which was in the name of petitioner and his wife Nishi Rani from December, 2012 to November, 2016 and in addition, he also illegally transferred Rs.30,23,312 from the PPO account to Bank Account No.0356000400510804, PNB, Nahan, which was also in the name of petitioner and his wife from March, 2014 to November, 2018. Similarly, the petitioner had illegally transferred Rs.33,05,373/- to his Bank Account No.55134143530, SBI Nahan from PPO account from February, 2015 to January, 2018, a sum of Rs.56,84,200/- from PPO account to Bank Account No.31525207249, SBI Nahan, maintained in the name of the petitioner and his wife. A sum of Rs.17,12,046/- was also found to have been illegally deposited by him from PPO account in Bank Account No. 31704696359, SBI Nahan, which was in the name of his daughter Supriya, from June, 2014 to November, 2016 and a further sum of Rs.21,74,921/- to the bank account of his son Arnav bearing No.32025963580 from PPO account, from March, 2014 to April, 2017. Thus, during his tenure as DTO Nahan, the petitioner had illegally transferred a total sum of Rs.1,68,66,371/-to his bank account and the bank accounts of his family members. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC as well as of PC Act and arrested the petitioner 23.03.2023.

The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no legal evidence against him as far as commission of the offence is concerned and he has been detained only under presumption. He further contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last about one year and two months and the delay in conclusion of trial infringes upon his right of speedy trial, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated.

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that the keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner by usurping the hard earned money of the pensioners, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the material available on record.

Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, he had preferred a bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.2185 of 2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner while posted as DTO, Nahan had diverted the huge public money amounting to Rs. 1.69 Crores from PPO accounts of the pensioners to his bank account as well as the bank accounts of his family members in an organized manner from the year 2012 to 2018 and invested the aforesaid amount for purchasing property. Since the petitioner was the custodian of public money, being posted as DTO and had prima facie misappropriated/embezzled huge public money from the Government treasury for his personal use, as such, in view of the seriousness of allegations leveled against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very cautious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail.

This Court, confronted Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, to point out the change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The only argument which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has advanced is that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2023 and the trial in the case has still not commenced, therefore, there is no likelihood of completion of the trial in near future. However, it has been informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the charge has already been framed and now the trial is to be fixed for evidence of the prosecution, as such, the learned trial Court can always be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in a time bound manner. Hence, keeping in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner has failed to point out any change in circumstances which would entitle him for getting bail in the instant application.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the regular bail application, there is no change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. The application is hereby dismissed.

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

Before parting with this order and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2023, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st December, 2024.The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order today itself to the learned trial Court, through e-mail.