Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39624 of 2017 Applicant :- Deepak Saran Opposite Party :- A.C.B., C.B.I., Ghaziabad Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas,Birendra Singh,Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Birendra Singh, for the applicant; Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra holding brief of Sri Gyan Prakash for the CBI and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed seeking bail in Special Case No.05 of 2017 arising out of R.C. No.1202016A0006 of 2016, under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and substantive offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station A.C.B., C.B.I. Ghaziabad, district Ghaziabad.
The prosecution case against the applicant is that at the relevant time while the applicant was posted as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Branch Bhojpur Dhampur, Moradabad, he in collusion with co-accused, allowed opening of fictitious Bank accounts of three institutions, namely, S.K.D. Inter College, Peepalsana; Adarsh Inter College Bhojpur; and Kisan Inter College Bhojpur with forged and fictitious KYC. It is alleged that from the Bank account of District Minority Welfare Officer, fraudulently under forged advice Rs. 1.27 crores were transferred to each of the three fictitious accounts and thereafter Rs.67 lacs was withdrawn from the account in Cash. The cheque on the basis of which Rs.67 lacs was withdrawn from the account was posted by Cash In-charge (co-accused Rajeev Sharma) and was passed by the applicant in the capacity of Branch Manager and the amount was received in Cash by the applicant. It is also alleged that when fraud was detected, then the applicant himself made deposit of Rs.67 lacs in the bank account in cash and the deposit slips, etc., were filled in the hand writing of the applicant. It is thus the case of the prosecution that applicant in collusion with other co-accused, not only fraudulently got fictitious bank accounts opened but by preparing forged document got money transferred from the account of District Minority Welfare Officer to the fictitious accounts and thereafter withdrew money in Cash and upon detection of the fraud, deposited the same back, which clearly established the culpability of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the Bank has not suffered any loss and the entire amount has been deposited, the applicant who has no previous criminal history is entitled to bail. It has also been submitted that the applicant was newly posted in the SBI Branch concerned and was himself duped by the co-accused into opening of the Bank accounts and that he had never any dishonest intention and, in fact, the money was deposited back in the Bank account before lodging of the First Information Report, which clearly signifies that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the applicant because when the applicant came to know about the fraud, he ensured that the amount is deposited back with the Bank. It has thus been submitted that the applicant had protected the interest of the Bank and is therefore entitled to be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that passing of cheque was by the applicant; withdrawal of money from the account in Cash and receiving the same was by the applicant; and the deposit of Cash in the Bank account was also by the applicant which clearly establishes the culpability of the applicant. It has been submitted that it was only when the inspection team of the Bank had discovered the fraud, the amount was deposited and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had tried to protect the interest of the Bank. It has been submitted that since the applicant was the Branch Manager and under his authority the account was opened and money was transferred in the forged and fictitious accounts of the college, the complicity of the applicant in the crime was clear and his involvement in the crime is writ large.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018. Rks.