Aneesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 109 Chatt

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 109 Chatt
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2021

Chattisgarh High Court

Aneesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 May, 2021

                                        -1-




                                                                           NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             MCRCA No. 94 of 2021
     1.

Aneesh Sharma S/o Late Shri K.N. Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 103, Gole Ka Mandir, Sunrise Residency Bank Colony, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh., District : Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

2. Aabha Purohit W/o Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 103, Gole Ka Mandir, Sunrise Residency Bank Colony, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh., District : Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

---- Applicants Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, Districtc Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

---- Non-applicant

For Applicant - Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State - Shri H.S. Ahluwaliya, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 17-05-2021

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.181/2020, registered

at Police Station - Kumhari, Districtc Durg, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable

under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC, the applicants have preferred this

application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants have

been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that transferring funds from

various internal accounts of bank to the defaulting accounts is in practice in

order to project a commercially upright picture to save the bank accounts which

are on verge of being declared as Non-performing assets. This is done at the

behest of top officials of the bank and the applicant No.1 has done the same

which was in the interest of the bank. It is also submitted that applicant No.1

got receipts from his father, which received by him after maturity of the fixed

deposit and the same were transferred to the account of applicant No.2.

Applicant No.2 has not made any transaction by herself, hence, she has no

part in the said transfer of the amount to her bank accounts. Placing reliance

on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 it is submitted that unless

and until there is extreme necessity applicants should not be arrested. On the

contrary applicant No.1 is ready to cooperate with the investigation and provide

all the details that are needed. Therefore, it is prayed that both these

applicants be benefited with grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for State/non-applicant opposes the submission and

the application and it is submitted that it is a clear case of embezzlement of

huge amount by the applicant No.1 who was an employee in the bank and

applicant No.2 is the beneficiary who received the amount of embezzlement in

her bank account. Therefore, both these applicants are not entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Complainant Rajeev Kerketta, Branch Managr of Indian Bank, Kumhari

has lodged the FIR that applicant No.1 during his posting in the bank as

Branch Manager between 21-07-2018 to 11-09-2020 has made withdrawals

from the KCC accounts of farmers, accounts of businessmen and the internal

accounts of the bank. In total he made such withdrawals from 80 bank

accounts through 118 entries and amount of Rs. 61,83,250/- have been

embezzled and the same have been deposited in the accounts of applicant

No.2 and one co-accused Sumit Kumar.

6. Considered on the submissions. After taking into consideration facts

present in the case, I am of this view that applicant No.1 does not deserve for

grant of anticipatory bail. However, case of applicant No.2 appears to be

different as she has not actively made any transaction in the bank accounts

and the only fact established is this, that some of the amount has been

deposited in her bank account. The other circumstance about her knowledge in

this respect may be revealed in the trial, but at present I feel inclined to allow her

prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of applicant No.1 is

rejected. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of applicant No.2 is allowed

and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant No.2 Aabha Purohit in

connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail by the

officer arresting her on her executing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Investigating Officer. The applicant No.2 shall also abide by the following

conditions :

(i) that applicant No.2 shall make herself available for interrogation

before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that applicant No.2 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/her from disclosing such

facts to the Court or to any police officer;