JEEVAN SEN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Firs t application of the applicant Jeevan Sen filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant was arrested on 14.01.2020 in connection with Crime No.392/2017 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 and 120-B of IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the applicant Jeevan Sen was working as Accountant and co-accused Pankaj Khatri was working as Manager in the complainant's firm Datt Enterprises. During the period from 05.04.2016 to 28.11.2016, applicant in connivance with co-accused withdrew an amount of Rs.51,46,895/- from the account of firm Datt Enterprises by way of online transaction for depositing service tax and also withdrew the amount of Rs.18,09,303/- from the account of firm Datt Associates and out of that amount, some amount was deposited in applicant Jeevan Singh's accounts No.913020015608331 located at Axis Bank, Branch Jabalpur and account No.178801000018 located at ICICI Bank, Branch Hazira Gwalior. Thus, applicant and co-accused misappropriated that amount. They also produced forged receipt of depositing that amount as service tax before complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no direct and clear evidence which can prove that the applicant has caused any kind of fraud and forgery to the complainant and the applicant was nowhere involved in any of the online transactions related to the complainant's firm. He further submitted that when any online transaction takes place, the text message relating to such transactions are received by the account holder on his mobile phone and also while filing Income Tax return the information relating to such transactions comes to the knowledge of the account holder, so it is clear that each and every transaction made from the complainant's Bank account was in complainant'™s knowledge and no exact date was mentioned by the complainant that on which date the alleged crime took place and by such statement itself it points out that the allegations made against the applicant are false and baseless. The alleged incident was committed during the period from 05.04.2016 to 28.11.2016 while the complainant lodged the report on 19.09.2017 and there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. There is no evidence on record that any of the amount was received or used by the present applicant. Even otherwise, applicant is ready to deposit Rs.31 lacs under protest. The applicant has been in custody since 14.01.2020 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.