Alok Kumar S/O Manjit Singh vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 857 of 2019 before the court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj u/s 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on account of offence being

registered vide I â€" C.R. No. 1 of 2019 with Mundra Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 406, 408 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s

3(1) (4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocity Actâ€), wherein the learned 4th

Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj rejected the said application.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocity Act.

Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent no.1- State.

Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant is falsely implicated and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He

further submits that at one occasion, summons u/s. 160 of the Cr.P.C. was sent to the appellant since certain bank transactions were made in the

account of Central Bank of India, where the appellant was serving as Manager and in respect of those accounts summons u/s.160 of the Cr.P.C. was

issued for which the appellant appeared before the Investigating Agency. He further submits that appellant was in service since September, 2012 to

May, 2014 with Central Bank of India at Mundra Bank in the said branch, and thereafter, on 24.05.2014 the appellant was transferred from Mundra

Bank to other branch of Central Bank of India. He further submits that charge-sheet has filed wherein appellant is not shown as an accused. He

further submits that even after recording the statement of the appellant, he was called time and again. Hence it was requested by learned advocate for

the appellant to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail.

From the other side, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 as well as Learned APP for the respondent-state has also objected the submissions

made by learned advocate for the appellant submitting that he has verified the documents as a Bank Manager in the present case the accused being a

Bank Manager has abetted in passing cheques. If the appellant would be released on Anticipatory Bail he will damage and tamper the prosecution

case. That, even if false signatures were found in the cheques without making any inquiry the accused has passed cheques and it prima facie appears

that the appellant has directly involved in the present case. It was further submitted that as a Bank Manager at the relevant point of time has cleared

the cheques and thereby abetted in commission of offence. The investigation for the present appellant is necessary and his custodial interrogation is

also required. Hence it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the

appeal.

Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-

State, it transpires from the contents of the complaint that no role of the present appellant attributed in committing offence. It appears that out of the

39 cheques only 5 cheques were sanctioned in presence of the present appellant as a Bank Manager. Thereafter, present appellant was transferred to

Ranchi (Jharkhand) on 24th May 2014. However, his name is arraigned as an accused in the complaint.

In the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 531, it was held that according to

Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, he was was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.

Therefore, considering decision rendered in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (supra), present appeal deserves consideration.

In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 857

of 2019 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the

event of his arrest on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety of like amount on the following conditions that the appellant

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 27th January 2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till

the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week;

and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would

decide it on merits;

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellant. The

appellant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be

directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of

the prosecution for police remand.

This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the

learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the appellant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon

completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail.

Direct service is permitted.