1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure granting bail to opponent No.2 in Bail Application No.6 of 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla vide its order dated 21.1.2012 in complaint registered as C.R.No.I-5 of 2012 with Rajpipla police station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The respondent was a Bank employee, who was looking after the clearing of the cheques of the Bank. He has allegedly used a cheque of complainant Bank and on making false statement with the Manager that the stop payment had been made in respect of the said cheque, he created false documents, misguided the higher authorities and, thereby cheated the Bank. He worked as in-charge Cashier in absence of original Cashier and misplaced Cheque No.157697 and misled the bank about the stop payment and thereby misappropriated the amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the bank.
3. Sessions Court granted regular bail to the accused on releasing him with bond of Rs.3000/-.
4. It is lamented by the learned advocate appearing for Mr.
Tejas Satta for the Bank that there is no condition imposed by the Court and it sends absolutely wrong signal in the society. There was a forgery and that there was an affidavit of the investigating officer, objecting to such grant.
5. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the case of the applicant. However, he stated that one of the accused is absconding and the regular bail ought not to have been granted. No amount has been traced and chargesheet in the matter, of course, has been filed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Rushab Shah appearing for the respondent has urged this Court that the remand of 8 days had been granted and as the investigating agency has already taken his specimen signature which has been sent to FSL for comparison and as the chargesheet having been placed, this application should not be entertained.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of State through C.B.I., vs.
Aqmarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 321 has held that the order granting bail if is perverse, the same would justify the cancellation. The Court in that case should avoid re- appreciation of evidence. The Apex Court had cancelled the bail of the accused by holding that generally the Court would not interfere in the matters relating to the grant of bail, but in exceptional circumstances, where the basic requirement of grant of bail is completely ignored by the High Court, there need will arise for interference. In the case of Er.K.K.Jerath vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 1934, the High Court found that acts of the accused may impede investigation resulting in tempering with prosecution evidence and therefore, the Apex Court upheld the order of refusing the grant of anticipatory bail.
8. This Court needs to be conscious of the fact that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. If the Court while granting the bail takes into account any irrelevant material, the order would be perverse and would justify the cancellation. The Court generally should avoid the re-appreciation of evidence of such cases. In the instant case, admittedly the bail has been granted to the accused and under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as can be also noted from the submissions of both the sides, chargesheet has been filed. Furthermore, in post bail period, there is no complaint of any misconduct. The challenge is made to the grant of bail on merit, particularly, considering the serious offence of committing forgery with the Bank and alleged misappropriation of huge amount of public money. The papers of investigation also indicate that remand of 8 days was granted and custodial interrogation though was permitted, no clue was found. As far as huge amount of Rs.25 lakhs is concerned, one of the accused is also absconding and in such circumstances, the grievance though is made of grant of regular bail, this Court will not be in a position to say that on irrelevant material, bail has been granted. It is also not feasible to endorse from the record to the submissions of the complainant Bank that the bail once having been granted, requires cancellation. However, learned advocate for the complainant could rightly point out to the Court some of the conditions, which necessarily ought to have been incorporated while grant of bail and stricter conditions of bail would be necessary in a case like the present one.
9. Resultantly, this application is not being entertained and the order of grant of bail though is not being cancelled, following are the conditions which are added:-
1) Respondent-accused shall surrender his passport, if any, within one(1) week from the date of receipt of this order before the Sessions Court.
2) He shall not leave the State of Gujarat without the permission of the Sessions Court.
3) He shall furnish additional bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir