Rajasthan High Court
Anand Singh S/O Khet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
1279/2022
Anand Singh S/o Khet Singh, R/o Rojda, Police Station Harmada,
District Jaipur. ( At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake,
District Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Aniket Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
10/05/2022
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,
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1279/2022]
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
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1279/2022]
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.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
