The Allahabad High Court has allowed the conditional bail application of an assistant manager of a bank, who has been accused of cheating and corruption.
A single-judge bench of Justice Samit Gopa passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Naveen Kumar Sharma.
The bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Naveen Kumar Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial under Sections 409, 420 IPC, 13(1) (c&d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B r/w Section 409, 420 IPC and Section 120-B r/w Section 13(1)(cd) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI, ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.
The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further argued that the applicant was posted as Assistant Manager in the Bank and the allegation against him is that he along with co-accused dishonestly and fraudulently transferred funds in 219 bank accounts of Prathama Kisan Credit Cards which were opened with conspiracy with other persons and also into the accounts of family members of Vipin Kumar and in the account of one Jitendra Arya.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant is not a beneficiary of the money. No money has been credited in his account or in any account of his family member. The only allegation against the applicant is the use of his user ID for fraudulent transfers in various accounts. The same is without any mens rea and the applicant was not the sole person transferring it in account. There are other officials also who passed and cleared the entries and then money was transferred.
It is further argued that a charge sheet in the matter has been submitted by the CBI against the applicant, co-accuseds Vipin Kumar and Jitendra Arya, as such there are no chances of the applicant not cooperating with the trial or tampering with the evidence. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant has been in jail since 25.2.2022.
Per contra, the CBI counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the official ID of the applicant was used for transferring the amount to different accounts along with other co-accused persons. The chargesheet in the matter has been submitted. Even money was transferred into the accounts of some persons who were dead and the same was withdrawn, as such the prayer for bail be rejected.
“After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no transfer of money either in the account of the applicant or in any account of his family members. The chargesheet has been submitted in the case. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Vipin Kumar. Looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, the Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered,
Let the applicant Naveen Kumar Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the surety will be of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide by the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 CrPC, may be issued and if 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 IPC.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. 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 a default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.