Rajiv Shetty vs The State and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—On 27.11.1995, Rajiv Shetty, the petitioner was enlarged on bail till disposal of the complaint filed by Mohan

Murti Shandilya, the applicant.

In his complaint under Sections 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was pleaded by Mohan Murti Shandilya that he was a non-

resident Indian based in Singapore and had opened a NRE Saving Account bearing No.6523 with Vijaya Bank, defense Colony Branch, New

Delhi. That Rajiv Shetty, working as a Manager with said bank had induced him to make deposits in the bank. That in the month of April, 1990

when Mohan Murti Shandilya was not in Delhi, Rajiv Shetty went to his house and requested his wife to hand him over a leaf of a cheque to him

stating that he, i.e. Rajiv Shetty had talked on this issue with the complainant. That wife of the complainant handed over one leaf of a cheque. That

Rajiv Shetty, in fact, wanted a leaf of the cheque pertaining to the NRE account and hence induced his wife, i.e. wife of complainant to hand over a

leaf of a cheque pertaining to the NRE account. That utilizing the said cheque, Rajiv Shetty defrauded the complainant. That the accused had

falsified the NRE Saving Account 6523.

While seeking bail Rajiv Shetty relied upon the account opening form and specimen signature card pertaining to a current account No.1571 in

the name of a company M/s. Gambro Nexim (India) Medical Ltd and pleaded that the complainant, Mohan Murti Shandilya, and his wife Renu

Murti Shandilya had opened the account as directors of the said company. Pertaining to the pleadings with respect to the said current account

1571, Rajiv Shetty placed on record, as Annexure P-1, the photocopy of specimen signature card bearing signatures of Renu Murti Shandilya and

Mohan Murti Shandilya.

The photocopy of the specimen signature card pertaining to the signatures of Renu Murti lists the writing of NRE 6523 as under:

Jeevan Nidhi Deposit NRE A/C No. 6523

I need not note any other fact pertaining to the grant of bail to Rajiv Shetty for the reason vide Crl. M. A. No.8653/2004 cancellation of the bail

has been prayed for on the ground that in other proceedings, Rajiv Shetty has filed a photocopy of the same specimen signature card wherein

Account No. NRE 6523 is written as under:

Jeevan Nidhi Deposit NR A/c No. E 6523

Stating that the letter ''E'' has shifted on the right side of the divider line pertaining to the Column of account number it is urged that the accused,

i.e. Rajiv Shetty obtained bail from this Court by falsification of record i.e. the specimen signature card that Annexure P-1 relied upon while

seeking bail is a fabricated document.

I note that photocopy of the specimen signature card being relied upon in support of the application is the one filed by Vijaya Bank in Suit

No.1154/1993 and in the said suit Rajiv Shetty is appearing as a witness of the bank and in relation to the controversy pertaining to the specimen

signature card has given his evidence.

I do not intend to discuss the testimony of Rajiv Shetty for the reason evidence is still being recorded in the suit and it would not be desirable for

me to comment upon the issue in the absence of complete evidence.

Issues pertaining to grant of bail, challenge in appeal to an order granting bail and cancellation of bail arise in mutually exclusive jurisdictions and

have to be dealt with on different basis, i.e. on different considerations.

As stated in the decision reported as Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,

broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or

attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the

basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However,

bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no

longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

In the decision reported as Panchanan Mishra Vs. Digambar Mishra and Others, it was observed as under:

The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who

is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime.... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is

released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches

of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and

also create problems of law and order situation.

It is not the case of the applicant that after bail was granted, petitioner Rajiv Shetty has interfered with or attempted to interfere with the due

course of administration of justice in the criminal complaint filed by the applicant or that petitioner attempted to evade the due course of justice or

has abused a concession granted to him.

In my opinion, it would not be permissible for this Court to revoke the bail on the ground that in some other proceedings a different copy of

specimen signature form has been relied upon.

More often than not, more than once specimen signatures are taken by a bank. Slight variation in the place where signatures are found would

not lead to the conclusion that a forgery has been committed. Be that as it may, Rajiv Shetty has testified in the suit with respect to the 2 specimen

signature forms being relied upon by the bank and him. Issue would have to be decided on merits keeping in consideration the total evidence led.

Lastly I note that the applicant had opposed the bail application filed by the petitioner and had availed the opportunity to make comments on

the specimen signature card.

I hold that no case is made out to cancel the bail granted to Rajiv Shetty.

The application is dismissed.

No costs.