Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15984 of 2021 Applicant :- Hari Shankar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Kushagra Vaibhav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.08/2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Fariha, District Firozabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has been stated that at the relevant time, applicant was working as Branch Manager in Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Fariha Branch, District Firozabad. The allegation that applicant has granted credit facility to 25 KCC holders without proper verification of their documents, is thoroughly false. It was stated that for obtaining KCC loans, the concern farmer has to submit copy of Khasra and Khatauni of his land, which has to be verified by the Advocate of Bank and physical verification has to be made by the field officer of Bank. The applicant has granted loans against KCC by fulfilling all formalities. It was also stated that after three years of his retirement from service of Bank, the FIR has been lodged against applicant. There is no evidence that applicant has sanctioned any loan by violating the bank rules. It has been pointed out that during his tenure, applicant has sanctioned credit facilities to 1240 farmers against their KCC and out of them, this complaint has been made in respect of 25 such cases. As per rules, applicant was not required to verify the documents of property, which was the duty of Bank Advocate and of field officers. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in this matter credit facilities were sanctioned by applicant while he was working as Branch Manager to 25 farmers against their KCCs without proper verification and on the basis of forged documents and thereby, an amount of Rs.50 lacs was disbursed to said account holders.
Perusal of record shows that allegation against applicant is that he has sanctioned loan to 25 farmers against KCC (Kisan Credit Cards) without proper verification of their documents of property and the case of applicant is that the duty of verification of documents was of Advocate of Bank and the duty of physical verification was of field officer. It has been pointed out that while working as Branch Manager, applicant has granted such credit facilities to about 1240 KCC account holders and this is made only in respect of 25 such cases. The applicant has been retired from Bank.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of applicant Hari Shankar Sharma in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail for the period till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Neeraj