STATE Vs. HARGYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. the State has preferred to challenge the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (01), West, Tis Hazari, Delhi in FIR No. 651/2014 under Section 408 of IPC registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi, whereby the respondent has been ordered to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C..

(2.) As per prosecution, the FIR No. 651/2014 was registered consequent to the complaint of one Prince Walia on 29.09.2014 under Section 408 of IPC against the accused and others on the ground that on internal audit, it was discovered that there was a physical shortage of Rs.73,85,100/ - in different ATMs of Corporation Bank on the Nangloi Route and accused was the custodian of these ATMs and route and thus the accused persons had misappropriated the aforesaid amount and committed an offence of breach of trust.

(3.) Investigation was commenced and the accused (respondent herein) was arrested on 29.10.2014 and after completion of investigation, the police filed the final report in the case before the competent Court on 26.12.2014. The Court while looking into the final report found that certain aspects required further investigation and accordingly directed for further investigation in the case vide order dated 08.01.2015. The accused applied for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had rejected vide order dated 23.03.2015, while observing that the police had indeed filed the final report in the prescribed time and merely because Court had asked for further investigation before taking cognizance would not deem to mean that charge sheet had not been filed within the prescribed time. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate relied on the judgment of Suresh Kumar Bhikam Chand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77.