Learned Sr.Counsel Mr.Raju submits that one accused named K.S.Mohanan who is some relative of the present applicant deposited Rs.4 crore 78 lacs in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. It is also submitted that the present applicant is in jail since more than eleven months and as per the complaint also, considerable amount was recovered during the investigation as well as prior to the FIR was lodged. It is also submitted by learned Sr.Counsel Mr.Raju that the other co-accused persons who are Directors of the bank were also granted anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the other borrowers who were also released on bail deposited the amount as per the order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel Ms.Acharya appearing for the original complainant submits that the present applicant is the main accused and because of him and other accused persons the bank occurred huge losses and prima facie they are involved in committing the crime of misappropriation of funds. It is also submitted by her that against the guidelines of the RBI and bi-laws of the bank, the present applicant passed the resolutions and sanctioned the loans to his friends and relatives though no sufficient documents were provided by them. It is also submitted that 195 fake accounts were opened with the help of the present applicant and huge amount was siphoned away. Considering this fact that fraud of huge amount is carried out by the present applicant along with other accused persons, she requested not to grant the bail. She also submitted that as per the report of RBI, the present applicant along with other Directors are liable for occurring huge losses to the bank and RBI has also recommended for lodging police complaint against the present applicant along with other persons. As per the statement of the witness also, prima facie involvement of the present applicant in committing the crime is established and so also she requested not to grant the bail to the present applicant.
Heard learned APP for the respondent - State. She submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail since more than eleven months, the offences alleged are triable by learned JMFC, the other accused are granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and that the another accused Mohanan who is relative of the present applicant had deposited Rs.4 crore 78 lacs in the bank, this application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-58 of 2011 of Udhana Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on furnishing bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and on conditions that the applicant shall :
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or abuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] maintain law and order;
[d] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on every 1st and 15th day of English Calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 2 p.m for three months;
[e] not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[f] furnish the address of residence along with documentary proof at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g] surrender passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately;
If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the bail bonds shall stand automatically cancelled.
At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
Bail before the Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
( M.D.Shah, J ) srilatha Top