Yogesh Kundra vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This is a petition filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ''Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No. 320 dated 30.7.2010 under Sections 420,423,467,468,471and 477-A of IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines, District Amritsar.

Before coming to this Court, the Petitioner had applied twice for bail before the Court below, but has remained unsuccessful despite the fact that he was even granted interim bail and was allowed to join the investigation but recovery could not be effected .

In this case, notice of motion was issued, pursuant to which Dr. P.K. Sekhon, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank. She has submitted that though the bank is neither the complainant nor the accused in this case, but reputation of the bank is at stake, therefore, she may be allowed to intervene in this matter. In order to assist the Court, she has produced on record copy of another FIR No. 347 dated 07.8.2010 registered against the Petitioner under Sections 420, 467,468,471/120-B of IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar City for defrauding the bank customers. She has also submitted that the Petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs. 12.50,000/-from the account of Satnam Singh to the account of Amarjit Kaur at Kiratpur who is not even related to Satnam Singh in any manner and withdrew the said amount.

As against this, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he was working as a Relationship Manager in the bank and the amount of insurance has been invested by him in the policies obtained by the complainant. At the same time, he has admitted before this Court that he had sworn an affidavit dated 10.6.2010 (in Punjabi), wherein he has admitted that he has obtained policies against the wishes of the complainant and has defrauded them. However, he has explained that this affidavit was given by him only on the assurance of the complainant that if this affidavit is given by him, then they would not register any case against the Petitioner.

earned Counsel for the State has submitted that these type of cases are on the rise in the society in which the bank employees are fleecing the innocent citizens who have no knowledge about the investment of their money.

Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact of registration of another FIR, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Hence this petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.