Anoop Chitkara, J
1. The petitioner, who worked as a Cashier in the Central Bank of India,and is under suspension since 2018, and is under incarceration for last more
than five months for having been arrested by CBI, for opening ghost accounts of 306 students, by either forging their signatures, or without obtaining
signatures at all, by entering into a criminal conspiracy with one Mr. Hitesh Gandhi, the Principal accused and who is also under arrest, and who was
the wholly solly of K.C. Group of Institutes, by withdrawing scholarship amount from vouchers handed over to the students for scholarship schemes
meant for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes to claim such scholarships to encourage
and support them in post matriculation studies, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail.
2. Status report stands filed.
3. I have read the status report(s) and have heard Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioner, Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Special Prosecutor, duly assisted by Mr. Anshul Attri and Ms. Manju Dhatwalia, Advocates, and Sub Inspector
Pankaj Kumar, Investigating Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla.
FACTS:
4. (i) The gist of the investigation traces its history to a number of complaints received by the Government of Himachal Pradesh regarding ghost
scholarships, claim of scholarships of different persons, changing of categories of claimants from Scheduled Castes to Scheduled Tribes and vice-
versa and various other aspects and opening of the bank accounts in the name of students to claim such scholarship. The matter was entrusted to the
Central Bureau of Investigation.
(ii) After the investigation stood transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation, a case vide RC No.0962019A0002 under Section 409, 419, 465, 466
and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act at Police Station, CBI, ACB, Railway Board Building, the Mall Shimla, has been registered.
(iii) The Central Bureau of Investigation visited KC Group of Institutions and Central Bank of India, SBS Nagar Branch, Nawanshahr, Punjab on
20.5.2020.
(iv) During investigation, it has been revealed that the accused/petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh had unauthorizedly opened fake and forged accounts of 306
non bonafide students and their scholarship amount was transferred to those accounts and subsequently withdrawn, detail of which have been
provided by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nawanshahr, Punjab through Whatsapp on 28.5.2020. However, hard copy of the same has
to be provided by the bank as and when curfew imposed by the Govt. of Punjab is relaxed.
(v) That on 3.1.2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation, arrested the petitioner who was initially sent for remand till 8.1.2020 and after that he is in
judicial custody.
(vi) During investigation, it transpired that at the time of admission, the students were asked to put their signatures on blank account opening forms,
debit and credit vouchers, cheques and withdrawal forms by the KC Group of Institute.
PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY
5. As per the status report, there is no previous criminal history of the bail petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS:
6. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, submits that the petitioner who was working as a
Cashier in the Central Bank of India, was already under suspension and as such access of the petitioner to tamper with the record of Central Bank of
India, is not easily possible. Such submission is not repelled by Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Special Prosecutor, for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
He further submits that the petitioner is 57 years old and due to COVID-19 Pandemic, keeping him in jail may be dangerous for his life because he
falls in vulnerable age group. He further submits that the allegations of the amount attributed against him does not make the amount as huge so as to
justify further incarceration despite the fact that he has already spent more than five months in judicial custody.
7. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Special Prosecutor argues that the offence is grave and although they have filed Police Report under Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C., but still investigation is going on. He further submits that if the bail petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. He further
submits that releasing the bail petitioner on bail, might have an impact on the bail of the principal accused, Mr. Hitesh Gandhi. Mr. Anshul Bansal,
learned Special Prosecutor also submits that if this Court grants bail to the petitioner, then this order might be used by Mr. Hitesh Gandhi to seek bail
on the ground of parity.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
8. Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such
a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with victim(s) and/or witnesses. The Court is
under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.
9. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that keeping in view the
nature of allegations and role of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further incarceration of the accused during the period of trial is not
warranted, especially keeping if view the fact that he is in jail for more than five months, and also for the following reasons:
(a) That because of COVID-19 disease, it has affected the investigation and in the present case, this fact finds mention in Paragraph-3 of the status
report, presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(b) The case of the present petitioner, S.P. Singh, is entirely different from the case of other accused, Mr. Hitesh Gandhi and, as such, is being
decided separately.
(c) As per the status report, the Central Bureau of Investigation, is able to procure around 50 account opening forms, but there is no ID/signatures on
the same and consequently as per paragraph-9 of the status report, Central Bureau of Investigation, directed the bank to provide details of
checker/maker IDs.
(d) Given suspension of the petitioner by the Central Bank of India from the post of Cashier, his access in the bank to tamper the record is not easy.
(e) The permanent address of the petitioner is as follows: S.P. Singh, son of late Sardar Shem Sher Singh, R/o Shubh Nagar Karyam Road,
Navashehar, Punjab, therefore, his presence can always be secured.
(f) The age of the petitioner is 57 years and certainly due to current COVID-19 Pandemic, he is almost in vulnerable age group.
(g) The petitioner is in custody since 3.1.2020 which is almost more than five months.
10. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, the judicial custody of the petitioner is not going to achieve any significant purpose. Thus, the
Court is granting bail, subject to the following conditions, irrespective of the contents of the bonds, and the furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed
acceptance of all stipulations, terms and conditions of this bail order:
(a) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court/Special Court/
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is
registered.
(b) As per the memo of parties, the petitioner is not the resident of Himachal Pradesh and it may be difficult for him to procure surety of a person who
is currently residing within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Because of the current COVID-19 Pandemic, the State has put restrictions on the
movement of the people in entering the State. Given above, the petitioner shall furnish the surety bond on or before 31.7.2020, in the sum of Rs.50,000
(fifty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court/Special Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court
exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is registered. It is clarified that on failure to furnish the surety bond on or before
31.7.2020, the petitioner shall surrender before the Court accepting his personal bond and this order shall stand recalled without any reference to this
Court.
(c) Before releasing the petitioner from custody, his AADHAR and other proofs of identity to secure presence during trial, be procured.
(d) The bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and even after that in terms of Section 437- A of the CrPC.
(e) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any superior officer. Whenever the investigation takes
place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5
PM. The petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree treatment, indecent language etc.
(f) The petitioner shall not influence, threaten, browbeat or pressurize the complainant, witnesses, and the Police official(s).
(g) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating officer, or any other person acquainted
with the facts of the case, to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or tamper with the evidence.
(h) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court, on issuance of summons/warrants by such Court.
(i) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioner about the date of hearing in the trial Court, even if such service takes place through
phone/mobile/SMS/ WhatsApp/E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the trial Court, or by the Prosecution. In case the petitioner does not appear
before the trial Court on such date of hearing, then the trial Court may issue bailable warrants, and if the petitioner still fails to put in appearance, then
the trial Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants to procure the presence of the petitioner, and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for the period
for which the trial Court may deem fit and proper, without being unduly harsh towards him.
(j) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.
(k) In case of Non-appearance on the intimated date, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the
expenditure (only the principal amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds
the amount recoverable after forfeiture of the bail bonds, subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The failure of the petitioner to
reimburse the State shall entitle the trial Court to order transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject
to the condition that the expenditure incurred must be only to trace the petitioner and relates to the exercise undertaken solely to nab the petitioner in
that FIR, and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.
(l) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities, if he does so, then in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that even earlier the
Court had cautioned the accused not to repeat the offence.
(m) The petitioner shall surrender all firearms along with ammunitions, if any, and the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days from
today.
(n) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address, and change of phone numbers, within 30 days from such change, to the police
station, and after filing of the Police report also to the trial Court.
(o) During the pendency of the trial, if the petitioner commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more, then the CBI may
file application for cancellation of the bail.
(p) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, may file an application for
cancellation of bail of the petitioner, and even the trial Court shall be competent to cancel the bail.
11. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental or other rights, including any human rights, or faces any other difficulty
due to any condition, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking
cognizance, before the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be and the trial Court shall also be competent to modify or delete
any condition.
12. The Counsel representing the accused and the Judicial officer accepting the bail bonds, shall explain all conditions of this bail order to the
petitioner, in vernacular.
13. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order, and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all
such conditions.
14. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing bail bonds
in the aforesaid terms.
15. The Court attesting the bail bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail- petitioner, his family members, through AADHAR Card. The petitioner
shall give details of AADHAR Card, phone number(s), WhatsApp number, e-mail, etc., Pan Card and Passport if available, on the reverse page of the
bonds. The petitioner shall also furnish details of personal bank account(s).
16. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the CBI or the investigating agency, from further investigation.
17. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the
petitioner.
18. This Court clarifies that on analysis of the evidence, available investigation, role of the petitioner and the fact that he was working in the Central
Bank of India and not with the Institute of Mr. Hitesh Gandhi, his case is entirely different. Consequently, this Court clarifies that grant of bail to this
petitioner shall not be taken as a factor of parity in the bail petition of the other accused, Mr. Hitesh Gandhi.
19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
20. The Court Master shall handover this order to the concerned branch of the Registry of this Court, and the said official shall immediately send a
copy of this order to the District and Sessions Judge, concerned, by e-mail. The Court attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this
order, and shall download the same from the website of this Court, or accept a copy attested by an Advocate, which shall be sufficient for the
purposes of the record.
21. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner, and to the Learned Special Prosecutor,
CBI, if they ask for the same.
The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.