Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Manish Bansal vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|23 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10090 of 2018 Applicant :- Manish Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
This is the Second Bail Application on behalf the applicant-Manish Bansal.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32053 of 2017 moved by the present applicant in Case Crime No.538 of 2014, under Sections 218, 477-A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.
According to prosecution case, in United Commercial Co- operative Bank Limited, Kanpur Nagar, on the enquiry, it was found that Pradeep Sahai (Secretary) with the help of other accused of the said Bank had embezzled Rs.26,03,54,948.75 paise (Twenty six crore three lacs fifty four thousand nine hundred forty eight rupees and seventy five paise). The applicant Manish Bansal was posted in the Bank as a System Manager, Atul Shukla was posted as a Cashier, Bihari Lal Gupta was posted as Assistant General Manager (Recovery) and Kamal Saxena was posted as Computer Operator. Pradeed Sahai was the named accused and during investigation, the name of other accused were found, who were also indulged in this crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that main accused Pradeep Sahai, Atul Shukla, Kamal Saxena and Bihari Lal Gupta have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5602 of 2018, 48216 of 2017, 31122 of 2017 and 2340 of 2018, vide orders dated 5.4.20-18, 8.12.2017, 22.8.2017 and 23.1.2018 respectively. This accused was neither named in the First Information Report dated 15.12.2014 nor in the enquiry report dated 26.7.2014 and there was no allegation of misappropriation of wrong act being contributed by the applicant in this episode. According to enquiry report as well as first information report the main allegations are against Pradeep Sahai. Enquiry report further mentions that D.J. Tiwari and Atul Mehrotra had embezzled amount of Rs.85 lacs under the G.L.B. and Money Multiplier Scheme of the Bank, but no action was taken against them by Pradeep Sahai, Secretary. According to enquiry report, Pradeep Sahai through his own relatives and his favourite employees of the Bank had taken loans without furnishing any collateral or security thereby causing further loss of Rs.3,44,98,366/- to the Bank as the said amount was declared NPA's. It is further submitted that charge-sheet against Pradeep Sahai, Bihari Lal Gupta, Atul Shukla and Manish Bansal was submitted before the court.
Now except this accused, all accused have been enlarged on bail in this case by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This accused is languishing in jail since 23.3.2017 (more than one year and five months); having no criminal history and there is no possibility to get this case being decided in near future. At present, the case of this accused is not grievous than the case of co-accused Pradeep Sahai, but identical to the case of other accused.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the applicant has no criminal history and case of this accused is less grievous than the case of Pradeep and identical to the case of other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail.
This accused was the System Manager and participated in the crime; hence the role of this accused is of also participating in the crime.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Manish Bansal involved in Case Crime No. 538 of 2014, under Section 218, 477A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 OP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manish Bansal vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
23 August, 2018
Judges
  • Aniruddha Singh
Advocates
  • Manish Tiwary