Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1511 (RAJ)

Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-05-10

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. F.I.R. No.119/2021 was registered at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur Rural for offence under Sections 420, 406, 409 & 120-B I.P.C. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that charges were framed on 28.10.2021, a period of more than six months has lapsed but still no witness has been called by the Court. Petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the provision of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C.. It is also contended that while rejecting the first bail application this Court observed that petitioner is responsible for causing loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.1 crore and 39 lakhs, whereas as per the charge-sheet, there were other employees of the bank against whom also there is allegation of causing loss to the bank. 4. It is further contended that the Apext Court in ’Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other’ (2021) 2 SCC 427 while confirming the judgment of ’State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Balchand’ has observed that grant of bail is the rule and rejection is an exception, as remedy of bail is the solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the second bail application. It is contended that the first bail application was rejected by the Court considering the merits of the case. Petitioner himself is an employee of the bank who got fake accounts opened and had transferred the subsidy received from Central Bank which was to be retained by the bank during lock in period. 6. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on ’Centrum Financial Services Limited Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.94/2022 decided by the Apex Court on 28.01.2022. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. This Court by detailed order has rejected the first bail application considering the fact that petitioner was instrumental in transferring the subsidy amount to different accounts even when the same was to be kept in the current account of the bank for the lock in period. It is also observed by the Court that petitioner’s wife took Rs. 4 lakh and 50 thousands in another scheme but that was shown to be a loan of more than Rs.23 lakhs rupees to obtain subsidy of Rs. It is also observed by the Court that petitioner’s wife took Rs. 4 lakh and 50 thousands in another scheme but that was shown to be a loan of more than Rs.23 lakhs rupees to obtain subsidy of Rs. 8 lakhs and 79 thousand from the Government. 9. Merely because the witnesses have not been examined, this Court is not inclined to entertain the second bail application because petitioner along with other bank employees defrauded the bank and was instrumental causing loss to exchequer to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and 39 lakhs, further the public was deprived of the benefit given by the government. Hence I am not inclined to entertain the second bail application. 10. This second bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.