RAJDHAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second bail application on behalf of Rajdhar Dubey. The First one in this case crime No. 424 of 1991 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. P.S. Pipri, District Sonebadra, wherein the State Bank of India, Pipri Branch. is said to have been cheated by Rajdhar Dubey of the sum of Rs. 55,985/- had been rejected on 27.2.1992.

(2.) The counsel for the applicant argued that inspite of the direction of this court with regard to expeditious trial, the prosecution has been sluggish. It was further shown to have not yet seriously perused the investigation of the case against the Bank officials, involved in the case, a few of whom had been suspended. The trial at the present pace of the prosecuting agency according to him, was not likely to concluded within a reasonable time and as such the applicant should not be left to languish in jail indefinitely. The counsel for the applicant further that the case was an intricate one involving specialised knowledge of banking books and procedures and this also was likely to result in delay. He, however, at time same time submitted that it had been blown out of proportion against the applicant as the persons who really had cheated bank were its employees and the employees if at all, he had a hand, would have got only a meagre share therein. Ha raised in this perspective a legal question that as the sentence in cheating cases and those of fabrication of documents has seldom been seen to be ten years or above,. the prosecution ought to have filed charge- sheet within sixty days and its failure to do so entitled the applicant to bail Besides, it was pointed that as the applicant had been illegally detained before his remand had been obtained, he should be allowed bail. The refusal of bail to the applicant, according to him, amounted to punishing him without trial. He further wanted me to appreciate that there was no likelihood of tampering of evidence on the part of the applicant but the real fear was from the bank officials who were interested in keeping him in jail so that they were not exposed. This point was also stressed that prima facie there was no adequate evidence against the applicant more so when the bunk officials were likely to be arrayed as co-accused.

(3.) The counsel for the State Bank of India and also the A.G.A. vehemently opposed the second bail application on the ground that there was no fresh material to justify it. the counsel for the State in this connection referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Anand Chintamani Dige, 1990(27) ACC 131 (S.C.) wherein, in the absence of fresh material, grant of bail was not held to be justified when earlier it had been refused. The counsel for the State Bark of India tried to show from the orders sheet of the Magistrate concerned that the applicant was avoiding to attend the Court. According to him the prosecution was ready to proceed with the trial, he argued that, it was not a fact that any of the bank officials had connived with the applicant in cheating the Bank. The Bank officials, he tried to show, could not detect the fraudulent activities of the applicant till they had been sounded in this regard from Bombay on the basis of computer checking. The applicant, he urged, with illgotton money had in his keeping a large number of muscleman and undesirable elements who had been terrorising .the bank officials. He showed how the applicant had cheated with the aid of the foils of the cheque-books issued to him, which he had given out to the bank to have been lost. The fact, that the amount for which the above fraudulent cheques had been drawn on behalf of the N.T.P.C. had been credited in the account of the applicant on the basis of the allegedly forged advice, is evident. This also is clear that the applicant had withdrawn the amounts which he by, fabrication of documents, had got credited in his account. The counsel for the State Bank of India vehemently argued that the applicant initially had not named any of the officials of the bank as being involved in the crime in question. The suspension of any bank official, he urged, did not imply that he had jointed hands with the applicant. His suspension, he submitted, may well have been for having not shown -dUe case and attention expected of him. The chargesheet against the applicant he asserted, had been filed well within time as the period of detention had to be reckoned from the date of remand and since the applicant was charged under Sec. 467 I.P.C. also, the charge-sheet could have been filed within ninety days of the first remand order by the Magistrate as the offence under Sec. 467 I.P.C. relating to forgery of a document to receive any money is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment up to ten years. The applicant, he last of all argued, being in jail under a valid remand order, cannot be released on bail except on merits.