Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10103/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10103 of 2008
with
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10111 of 2008
with
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10110 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10109 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10108 of 2008
=========================================================
ARVIND
RAVINDRA PAGARE - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PARTHIV B SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SP HASURKAR APP for
Respondent(s) :
1-2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 12/09/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
All
these successive bail applications are preferred by the applicant
under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
the Code ) in connection with the following offences registered
with the Bharuch `A’ Division Police Station being I-182/2005,
I-183/2005, I-192/2005, I-187/2005 & I-186/2005 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
It
is to be noted that on earlier occasion the applicant preferred bail
applications being Criminal Misc. Applications Nos.8443 to 8447 of
2007, which were permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order
dated 31.08.2007. Order dated 31.8.2007 reads as under :-
Date
: 31/08/2007
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.J.M.Malkan,
learned counsel for the applicants submits that, at this stage,
considering the role attributed to the applicant, his case may be
considered for bail. However, since the Court is not inclined to
grant bail, Mr.Malkan, learned counsel for the applicant, seeks
permission to withdraw all these applications, at this stage, with a
liberty to approach this court afresh, if the trial is not completed
within a period of 6 months. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
It will be open for the applicant to file fresh applications, if the
trial is not completed within 6 months from today.
Accordingly,
all these applications stand disposed of as withdrawn.
Notice
discharged in each of the applications .
No
doubt, it was kept open for the applicant to request for bail again
in case if trial is not completed within 6 months and even today
also charges are not framed.
Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is behind bars
from 30.9.2006 and almost 2 years have passed since the applicant is
in jail. The alleged offences took place somewhere on 3.5.2001 and
the FIRs are filed only in 2005 i.e. after a considerable delay of 4
years and the same are filed pursuant to proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is next submitted that
similarly situated persons, including one co-accused viz. Kiritbhai
N. Bhatt was ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order
dated 4.11.2007 and other purchasers of cheques were also enlarged
on bail by different Courts. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that in his capacity as Manager of the Bank he had
purchased cheques of Rs.26 crores and all amount has been paid by
the concerned parties at relevant point of time and as per the
practice he has purchased other cheques of Rs.3 crores, where the
parties failed to pay the amount and the action taken bonafidely by
the applicant, as a prudent banker, cannot be branded as commission
of offence, as alleged under Section 406, 409, 420 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
when the trial has not yet commenced the applicant deserves to be
set at right on the above grounds by imposing suitable conditions.
Manager
of Punjab National Bank, Bharuch branch has remained present.
Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as
well as Punjab National Bank, vehemently opposed grant of bail to
the application the ground that serious charges are levelled against
the applicant and the whole amount is to the tune of Rs.26 crores
approximately. According to learned APP at the relevant point of
time applicant was performing his duty as Branch Manager of the
Punjab National Bank at Bharuch and purchased cheques contrary to
the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and not only that
but exceeded his jurisdiction while doing so. When the cheques came
to be deposited the amount is not received by the Bank and it has
caused huge loss to the public at large. So far as other co-accused
who are released on bail and parity is claimed by the applicant is
misconceived inasmuch as the said co-accused Mr.Kiritbhai N. Bhatt,
who was in-charge of the post for a short period, continued the
practice adopted by the applicant bonafidely. It is further
submitted that delay in commencing trial can be attributed to the
applicant inasmuch as till today the applicant has not engaged any
advocate or sought any legal assistance. It is further submitted
that the whole transaction of purchasing cheques where the amount of
more than Rs.3 crores is involved was taken up by the applicant
within 4 months and while performing duty as Branch Manager of the
bank the applicant herein also opened the accounts of co-accused in
the bank and in their name cheques were purchased by the applicant
and payment was made to the concerned account holders, which later
on came to be deposited in the bank and cheques were bounced. The
above modus operandi clearly indicate prima facie involvement of the
applicant in the alleged offence and considering the additional fact
that the applicant herein was dismissed after full-fledged
departmental proceedings where he was found guilty does not deserve
any relief under Section 439 of the Code.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and considering the offences under sections 406, 409, 420 &
114 of the Indian Penal Code, which are very serious in nature and
invite punishment of imprisonment for life and the role of the
applicant as a Manager of the Bank prima facie appears to be of not
a prudent banker but on the contrary detrimental to the banking
interest. Purchasing of cheques without prior permission of the
authority and opening bank account for co-accused indicate prima
facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. So far as
delay in trial is concerned, the applicant herein is liable to some
extent because till today defence advocate is not engaged and
considering the involvement of the applicant in the above serious
offences where Rs.3 crores yet to be recovered, parity as claimed by
the applicant cannot be given inasmuch as other co-accused played a
different role and even in the case of Mr.Kirit N. Bhatt he was
in-charge for a very short duration, who followed the practice of
the applicant.
In
view of the above discussion, powers under section 439 of the Code
cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, all
these Criminal Misc. Applications fail and are hereby rejected.
Notice issued in each application stand dismissed.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top