Deepak Bali vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Since both of aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being

disposed of by this common order.

Heard on these first applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Deepak Bali

and Indra Prakash Garg in Crime No. RC0082017A0011 registered by CBI, DistrictBhopal (M.P.) under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409 and

420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the first information report lodged on 03.10.2017 by Vivek Pandey, Registrar, Lakshmibai National

Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior (MP) [LNIPE], petitioner Indra Prakash Garg was Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in LNIPE. Petitioner

Deepak Bali was Deputy Manager in Mela Road Branch of Indra Prakash Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh State Bank of India where LNIPE had

two bank account nos.10025857768 and 34823816487. During the period commencing from 22.03.2016 and ending on 23.03.2017, petitioner Indra

Prakash Garg illegally transferred in all Rs.32,05,757/- by 19 different transactions from aforesaid bank accounts of LNIPE to his own account

no.30164849840 in the same bank through internet banking. The investigation revealed that internet banking kits for aforesaid illegal transactions were

provided to petitioner Indra Prakash Garg by petitioner Deepak Bali. When the aforesaid illegalities came to the notice of the Financial Department

of LNIPE, an audit was ordered and it was discovered that an amount of Rs.25,38,370/- was transferred from the account of LNIPE to the

account of petitioner Indra Prakash Garg; therefore, a notice was issued to petitioner Indra Prakash Garg on 12.09.2017 asking him to deposit a sum

of Rs.25,38,370/within three days. However, he deposited a sum of Rs.30,69,143/- because actually it was the amount of Rs.30,69,143/- that was

transferred from the accounts of LNIPE to the account of petitioner Indra Prakash Garg.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner Indra Prakash Garg submits that the amount was transferred by mistake to the account of petitioner Indra

Prakash Garg. As soon as he learnt about the same through the notice dated 12.09.2017, he deposited not only the amount of Rs.25,38,370/- which

was mentioned in the notice but entire amount of Rs.30,69,143/- Indra Prakash Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in the account of LNIPE. Thus,

there were no mala fides on the part of the petitioner Indra Prakash. Earlier, the case was registered against Drawing and Disbursing Officer of

LNIPE R.S. Bhadoriya and Registrar thereof, Vivek Pandey by P.S. Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior. However, later, CBI implicated petitioner Indra

Prakash in the matter. The charge sheet has been filed on 28.03.2017 and the custody of the petitioner is not required for any further investigation.

Therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner Indra Prakash Garg be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner Deepak Bali submits that the petitioner has since retired and has settled in Delhi. He was called by CBIÂ on

two occasions for interrogation and he had cooperated with the CBI. He was not arrested by them. The CBI had given notice for appearance before

the trial Court on 28.03.2017. He had moved an application for exemption but the same was dismissed and warrant has been issued against him. In

these circumstances, his presence is not required for investigation. He further submits that petitioner Indra Prakash Garg was authorized by LNIPE;

therefore, internet banking kit was issued in his favour by the petitioner Deepak Bali. The petitioner is not responsible if co-accused Indra Prakash

Garg misused the kit and misappropriated the amount.

Learned Solicitor General has opposed the applications of both the petitioners by inviting attention to the fact that the Indra Prakash Garg vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh amount of Rs.32,05,757/- was not embezzled by a single transaction. There were as many as 19 transactions over a period of about

one year. Petitioner Indra Prakash was merely an Upper Division Clerk; therefore it is inconceivable that he would not be alarmed by deposit of lakhs

of rupees in his account on numerous occasions. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be believed that he learnt about the deposit of amounts in his

account only upon receipt of notice from LNIPE on 12.09.2017. In these circumstances, return deposit of amount of Rs.30,69,143/- by petitioner Indra

Prakash in the account of LNIPE before lodging of first information report on 15.09.2017, does not establish his bona fides. Though, the amount

was deposited before lodging of the first information report but it was done after discovery of embezzlement by the Institute. He further submits that

petitioner Indra Prakash was entrusted with reconciling the bank accounts of the Institute with bank statements; however, he neglected to do the

same in order to cover the fraud. Later, that duty had to be entrusted to someone else whereafter embezzlement was discovered.Â

So far as petitioner Deepak Bali is concerned, learned ASG has invited attention of the Court to the statement of Arvind Kumar Pandey,'Maker' for

internet banking, posted in Mela Road Branch of State Bank of India, Gwalior at the relevant time. He has stated that petitioner Deepak Bali was

aware of 'Maker' password. He was on friendly terms with Indra Prakash Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh petitioner Indra Prakash. He had issued

internet banking kit to co-accused Indra Prakash. The undated Online SBI Registration Form signed and submitted by petitioner Indra Prakash Garg

for new password, bears the kit number in the handwriting of petitioner Deepak Bali. The concerned entry in the Internet Banking Kit Issue Register

is also in the handwriting of petitioner Deepak Bali. Learned ASG further submits without the knowledge and complicity of petitioner Deepak Bali, the

internet banking kit for transfer of amounts from the account of  LNIPE to the private account of coaccused Indra Prakash Garg, could not have

been issued. Therefore, it has been prayed that in view of the magnitude of embezzlement, the anticipatory bail applications of both the petitioners be

dismissed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned ASG for the respondent-

CBI, in the opinion of this Court, none of petitioners namely Deepak Bali and Indra Prakash Garg deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, these first applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Deepak

Bali and Indra Prakash Garg are dismissed.