Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J
1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release, in
the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 7 of 2019, dated 30.07.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act,
1988, registered in Police Station SV&ACB, Una, District Una, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of
the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by
sending them behind the bars, so they be released on bail.
3. An exhaustive police report has been filed. As per the prosecution story, on 20.07.2019, after approval of the competent authority a communication
was received by the police for registration of a case. The complainant alleged that Smt. Nutan managed to siphon 2.2 crore loan from Kangra Central
Co-operative Bank (KCCB) in connivance with the bank authorities. In an inquiry, it was found that petitioner Ashok Puri, who was Assistant General
Manager, Una, sanctioned and disbursed Rs. 1.31 crore loan to Smt. Indu Walia and Shri Ram Prakash Singh without adhering to the rules. These
loans were declared NPA (Non performing assets) in the year 2015-16. Petitioner Ashok Puri during his stint as Assistant General Manager, Una,
sanctioned loans of Rs. 25 lac, which was beyond power and authority. Petitioner Ashok Puri committed financial irregularities by misusing his official
position. Likewise, petitioner Kamal Dev Bhogal, sanctioned and disbursed loans of Rs. 2.15 crore without adhering the financial norms to Smt. Indu
Walia and Shri Ram Prakash Singh, thus he also committed financial irregularities. Petitioner Kamal Bhogal has been charge sheeted by the KCCB,
Head Office Dharamshala. In addition to the above allegations, the complaint mentioned several other criminal offences committed by the petitioners.
It has come in the inquiry conducted by the KCCB that Smt. Indu Walia and her husband Shri Ram Parkash are connected directly or indirectly with
31 loan accounts of Rs. 5.46 crore and petitioner Ashok Puri sanctioned and disbursed Rs. 1.31 crore out of 5.46 crore and petitioner Kamal Bhogal
sanctioned and disbursed Rs. 2.15 crore out of 5.46 crore. Smt. Indu Walia deposited Rs. 1,98,92,428/-, in cash, in the bank. During the inquiry major
similarities have been noticed in processing of the loans. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that petitioner Ashok Puri, during his stint
as Manager in KCCB, Branch Office Una & RH Una, fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs. 91 lac to Indu Walia and
Ram Prakash without adhering to the financial rules. These loans have total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,23,66,693/- and in addition to this certain
other loans have been sanctioned by petitioner Ashok Puri. Similarly, it has come in the investigation that petitioner Kamal Bhogal during his stint as
Manager in KCCB, GC, Una, fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed 11 loans amounting to Rs. 2.39 crore. These loans are
fictitious/benami loans of which Indu Walia is actual beneficiary. Petitioner Kamal Bhogal has also been charge sheeted by the bank authorities.
Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners have committed serious financial irregularities and put the
public money on stake by abusing their official positions. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee
from justice. The petitioners can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so their bail application be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the
police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that
the petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has
argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, as they are joining and co-operating in the investigation. He
has argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional
Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious crime by sanctioning and disbursing huge amounts of loan without
adhering to financial rules, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from
justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to flee from
justice and nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, as they are joining
and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioners are in public employment and serving within the State of Himachal Pradesh, they are residents
of the place, so neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, also considering the fact that they
are joining and co-operating in the investigation, ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which
have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit
the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that
the petitioners, in case FIR No. 7 of 2019, dated 30.07.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988,
registered in Police Station SV&ACB, Una, District Una, H.P., be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, subject to their furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.
(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioners will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.
8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
