Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43012 of 2016 Applicant :- Sushma Chandna Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation A.C.B., Ghaziabad Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyan Prakash, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Special Case No. 03 of 2015 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
This application for bail has been included in the Board of this Court pursuant to an order of nomination dated 30.01.2018. The application itself has been moved pending conclusion of trial and it is admitted across the Bar that post cognizance having been taken, the trial has already commenced.
The allegation in the charge-sheet is that she was instrumental in discounting of 78 bills over and above the sanctioned limit and that she had also granted credit of the bills on the basis of forged amendments made therein.
The Court notices that in respect of the same incident a learned Judge in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2116 of 2016 has granted bail to the co-accused. The learned Judge has also noted that all the other officers who were involved in the discounting of bills have also been enlarged on bail by the Court.
The relevant extract of the order reads as follows :-
“The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Ghaziabad. During his tenure as Branch Manager of Bank concerned, various bills were submitted for discounting by Ramesh Chandra Goel (co-accused), who was proprietor of M/s. Sushila Steel, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. Some of the bills were discounted by the applicant in his capacity as Branch Manager on account of which some credit facility was provided to the persons who had submitted those bills for discounting. The allegation is that those bills were got issued from another Bank, namely, Punjab National Bank and certain amendments were forged in those bills for the purpose of getting undue advantage. It is alleged that without properly verifying the amendment in the bills, credit facility was allowed to be availed against those bills as a result the Bank was exposed to risk/loss.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that not only the applicant but there were other officers also of the Bank who had allowed discounting of such bills and those officers were namely, Ram Singh Thakur; Rajesh Gupta; Prabhut Nath Singh and Ramesh Kumar Chhabra. It has been submitted that there were similar allegations against those officers and this Court had granted bail to some of those officers, namely, Ram Singh Thakur; Rajesh Gupta; Prabhut Nath Singh and Ramesh Kumar Chhabra vide separate orders dated 9th September, 2016; 4th October, 2016; 21st September, 2016 and 12th October, 2017 passed in bail application nos.1847 of 2016; 5011 of 2016; 5012 of 2016 and 34022 of 2017, respectively.
Attention of the Court has been invited to paragraph 15 of the charge-sheet, which is at page 80-81 of the paper book, to demonstrate that all the bills discounted during the tenure of the applicant stand realized, but the proceeds received for realization were not as per norm and prevailing practice. It has been submitted that the applicant is innocent; he had discounted the bills in good faith and nothing incriminating has been recovered so as to show/ demonstrate that the applicant had made any pecuniary gains out of the transaction. It has also been submitted that the applicant has been responsible officer of the Bank and has remained in jail since 20th October, 2015 and considering the fact that co-accused have already been admitted to bail by this Court, the applicant is entitled to bail. It has lastly been contended that the applicant, if released on bail, will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for C.B.I. 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 period of detention already undergone by the applicant and the fact that other co-accused, who were also officers of the Bank, have been admitted to bail by this Court, without commenting upon merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.”
Additionally the Court notes the applicant herein was posted there for a short duration between 14.07.2011 to 24.05.2012 whereas the major bills have been discounted by Credit Officers other than the applicant. The Court further notes that the applicant has been in custody since 20.01.2016.
Accordingly, and in view of the above this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Let the applicant Sushma Chandna 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 she 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 her 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 her 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 VR