Moolchand Buri S/O Ramkumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3197 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                                 8819/2021

Moolchand Buri S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mohan
Ka Bass, Police Station Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present
Confined In Sub Jail Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                  ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11652/2021 Anand Singh S/o Khet Singh, R/o Rojda Ps Harmada Dist. Jaipur (Presently Confined To Sub Jail Sambhar Lake Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat For Complainant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For State Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

27/07/2021

1. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.119/2021 was registered at Police Station Jobner,

Jaipur Rural for offence under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B

I.P.C.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8819/2021]

3. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that co-

accused- Banshidhar Bhatesar has been enlarged on bail by Co-

ordinate Bench. As per the charge-sheet and the evidence, it is

evident that Banshidhar Bhatesar has used the amount. It is also

contended that no amount was recovered from the petitioners.

There is no allegation with regard to amount has been embezzled

by the petitioners. It is further contended that petitioner-

Moolchand is a sales manager and petitioner-Anand Singh is a

Branch Operational and Service Manager. It is contended that

there are many persons working in the A.U. Small Finance Bank

and Devnarayan, who was the branch manager has not been

arrested even though he is mentioned as an accused.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for A.U. Small Finance

Bank have opposed the bail application. It is contended that audit

was conducted from where it came to the notice of the bank that 8

fake accounts were opened. It is argued that the sales manager

and operational manager both were responsible for opening the

fake accounts. It is also contended that in the said 8 fake

accounts, the subsidy amount was being transferred. It is further

contended that a total a sum of Rs. 1 crore 39 lakhs which have

remained in transit account for three years and which amount was

payable to Government of India, was transferred to the accounts

by the present petitioners. It is contended that from the evidence

it is evident that Moolchand met different persons in order to give

loan. In the said loan accounts, subsidy amount was transferred

and the said was withdrawn without giving any benefit to the

persons who had taken the loan. It is also contended that wife of

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8819/2021]

petitioner-Anand Singh took a loan of Rs. 4 lakh 50 thousands in

another scheme and a subsidy of Rs. 8 lakh 79 thousands was

deposited in her account and the same withdrawn by her. This

goes to show that petitioner-Anand Singh is responsible for

causing loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and 39 lakhs.

The case of the petitioners is not akin to that of Banshidhar

Bhatesar as he was just an employee of the bank.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State and counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to

entertain these bail applications.

7. These bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed.

8. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /8-9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)