ANIL KUMAR RAJPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail. A complaint under Section 403/406/408/409/420 IPC was registered against them resulting into F.I.R. No.375 of 2006. The allegations against the accused Anil Kumar Rajpal are that he was Chief Executive Director of the Co-operative Society and he had initiated a scheme for providing LIC cover to the members of the Society. He had assured the members that no agent would be involved in this scheme and premium would be collected from the salary of the members of Society and paid directly to LIC. However, he clandestinely got two of his relatives, namely, Smt. Mamta Bhatnagar and Smt. Preeti Bhatnagar appointed as agents with LIC with a result that these two agents were paid a commission of Rs.1,20,00,000/- by LIC. The other allegations are that the LIC policies obtained for members expired but still collection of premium continued and this was not deposited with LIC. However, it is not the case of the complainant that the premium collected was misappropriated by the applicant or as a result of paying commission by LIC, a loss was suffered by the Society or members. Rather the case of the complainant is that the premium collected was separately deposited in an account of the Society and out of this account of Society, despite expiry of the LIC cover, the deceased members were paid benefits under the policy.

(2.) The premium being collected from each member from each members' salary was Rs.50/- per month. There were approximately 65,000 members of the Society all over India. Thus, a sum of Rs.32 lac per month was being collected from the salary of the members. The commitment made by the applicant to members was that a Group Insurance Policy would be obtained for the members. This Group Insurance Policy actually was obtained but it was allowed to lapse and it was not renewed. It was also alleged that the accused did not bring it to the notice of the employees that the policies had lapsed and the premium collected from the employees was being deposited in a reserve account.

(3.) The entire investigation in this case is record based. It is not alleged that the accused in any manner had tried to destroy the record or to fudge the record. The case is pending investigation against accused since year 2006. The investigation does not seem to have been completed till date. The accused under directions of the court had appeared before the Investigating Officer.