Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17594 of 2017 Applicant :- Sona Kumar Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Ghaziabad Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Kavita Tomar,Shri V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra,Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; and Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Sri Gyan Prakash for the CBI; and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.1202015A0003, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI/ACB, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the role of the applicant is that of passing a bogus claim made on EPFO, Meerut. It has been submitted that from a bare perusal of the charge sheet it would appear that the amount was sanctioned on the basis of a claim raised by the Managing Director of a Company, which was registered in the office, and the disbursement of the claim was made through account payee cheque which went to the account of the claimants. Only later, it was discovered that the signatures of the Managing Director of the company were forged by one of its employees and that the claimants' account were bogus. It has been submitted that it is not in dispute that the applicant had the authority to sanction and pass the claim and there is no evidence collected to show that the applicant had received any improper consideration for passing of the claim. It has been submitted that neither any money has been recovered from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant nor any trap was laid against the applicant. It has been submitted that there is no evidence to show that the applicant had any involvement in opening of the bank account of the claimants. It has been submitted that the action of the applicant would at best be an act of negligence but cannot be taken as an act where the applicant had any dishonest intention. It has also been submitted that the amount sanctioned was not very high, which may put the passing officer on guard. It was, in fact, a routine transaction. It has been submitted that the applicant is innocent with no previous criminal history; he is in jail since 03.04.2017 and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Sona Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 AKShukla/-