0

There may be Common Factors but the Factors are Always not the Same: High Court of Shimla

No relation with the parameters taken into consideration for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the parameters relevant for considering bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., there may be common factors but the factors are always not the same.This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Mangal Singh Negi Versus Central Bureau of Investigation [CRMPM No.321 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

The instant petition had been filled seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR registered in SPE Branch CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 120-B along with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner had joined Allahabad Bank as a Probationer Officer. Thereafter he was promoted as a Manager and as of now he is serving as a Senior Manager in Allahabad Bank Hamirpur. Petitioner apprehended his arrest, during ongoing investigation by CBI being carried out with respect to as many as 26 Institutions, main accused had opened accounts of their Partnership Firm ASA Marketing Solutions and also of large number of students and the petitioner is the officer, who is being considered an instrumental to the ill-design of main accused to swallow huge amount of scholarship for which students were entitled. He had been found actively associated with main accused, that a payment of `1,50,000/- is stated to have been received by the petitioner on the basis of self-cheque issued by main accused.

The learned council referred the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1980), State of Gujarat Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji, (1987) 2 SCC 364, State Represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (DB), (2011) 1 SCC 694.

The court opinioned that, “It is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused, main conspirator in the case, has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, passed in therefore, right of petitioner for enlarging him on bail, on the ground of parity, has also been pressed. Co accused, may be main accused, has been enlarged on bail in a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as she was in judicial custody. There may not be any relation with the parameters taken into consideration for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the parameters relevant for considering bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There may be common factors but the factors are always not the same. However, in absence of established necessity of custodial interrogation, it may be relevant to some extent sometimes but not always.”

The petition was disposed stating that, “the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `2,00,000/- with two sureties, each in the sum of `1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Special Judge, within two weeks from today, subject to the conditions provided.”

Click here to read the judgement-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat