BA1/1732/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 687 UK

Office Notes, reports, orders or SL. proceedings or Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS No directions and Registrar's order with Signatures

BAI No. 1732 of 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J .

Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura and Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 346 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC registered at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; has no criminal history in his credit and is languishing in jail since 09.03.2021. He also submits that there is no independent witness against the applicant; that even if an employee like applicant, who is an employee of Cooperative Society, committed any crime and breach of trust, then too, as per the definition of Section 409 IPC, if such offence committed by a public servant or banker, merchant or agent, it is punishable u/s 409 IPC, whereas it is not applicable on the person who are neither public servant or banker; that the Mini Bank was only a Cooperative Scheme for farmers and not a Bank, hence, it was renamed as Gramin Bachat Kendra; that as per Section 21 IPC, the applicant does not come within the definition of public servant; that even if any person is public servant, as per Cooperative Societies Act, then too for the purpose of Section 409 IPC, he cannot be held as a public servant as he does not come under the definition of Section 21 IPC. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Maharashtra vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others reported in 2000 (2) SCC 699" wherein it is held that if any employee is not a public servant, in terms of Section 21 IPC, then Section 409 IPC will not be applicable upon him.

He further submits that in case the applicant grants bail, he will not misuse the same.

Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and contended that the applicant performing banking functions comes under the definition of public servant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the law laid down by the learned counsel for the applicant, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case and, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 10.03.2022 SB