B.K. Mehra vs C.B.I.

G.S. Solanki, J.

Heard finally.

This is the second bail application filed by applicant u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 19/01/2012 in M.Cr.C. No. 736/2012. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. R.C. No. 0092010A0007/2010, registered at police station C.B.I., ACB Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)c & d of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that applicant is suffering from heart ailment. It is further submitted that his son Sonam and daughter Sonika are mentally retarded persons and in the event of arrest no one would be available to look after these minor children. His contentions are duly supported by documents issued by treating doctor of the applicant as well as disablement certificate issued by Medical Board (Annexures A-8 and A-9) respectively. It is submitted that as per the Rule 331 of Office Manual Part II of Defence Accounts Department, role of this applicant is different than AAO/SO (A) and he signed the cheques in compliance of aforesaid Rule 331. The department issued the show cause notice against this applicant to explain the circumstances in regard to the disputed cheques vide Annexure A-3 and he explained the circumstances vide letter dated 8/11/2010 (Annexure A-4) and submitted that he initialed as a token of confirmation that the cheques have been prepared as per the entries in the DP sheet. In this way, he signed and verified the specimen signature of the person concerned therefore, in the light of aforesaid given circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/CBI submits that this applicant has issued the disputed cheques without verifying the signature of authorized person. It is further submitted that this is the case in which custodial interrogation is required therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application.

I have perused the case diary and the previous order passed by this Court on 19/01/2012.

The contention of the verification of signature has already been considered. The department had not initiated any inquiry against this applicant. On the basis of reply given by this applicant vide letter dated 8/11/2010 (Annexure A-4) which may be the defence of the applicant at the time of trial. There is a prima facie case against this applicant that he issued the disputed cheques without verifying the signatures and he also issued the cheques in the month of April and signed the DP sheets of that month allegedly same was not having the signatures of Jitendra Kumar and Saranjeet Singh Bhatia. As far as health conditions of this applicant and his son and daughter are concerned, no doubt he is aged person of 59 years and suffering from the heart ailment but at the same time it is the case in which custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant under the special provisions of section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, application is hereby dismissed.