RAMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.124 dtd. 27/7/2021 registered under Ss. 420, 409, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was recorded on the statement of Sashi Kapoor to the effect that both Ashok Kumari @ Sadhana (since granted bail) and her husband Raman (petitioner) were agents of the Post Office and they after opening the RD, FDR of people, used to deposit the money. They also opened two RDs in the name of his wife Rama Kapoor out of which one RD was matured/closed in the month of July, 2020 and entry in this regard was made by them in their own hands and the total amount of the same was Rs.7,46,507.00. Raman Kumar used to collect the amount of installments of the second RD from him by visiting his house and in this regard he asked to Raman Kumar many times to provide him the copies of the RD but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. When he went to the post office, he came to know that Raman Kumar had not deposited the amount in their RD/account and has misappropriated the amount and thus cheated them to the tune of Rs.12,53,000.00. During the investigation, it was found that the accused had also cheated different persons to the tune of Rs.1,01,32,600.00. Thus, an offence was made out under Ss. 420, 409 and 120-B IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the arrest of the petitioner on 27/7/2021, the challan in the present case was presented on 25/10/2021 and the charges under Ss. 420, 409 and 120-B IPC were framed on 13/12/2021 and the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence was on 22/12/2021. There were a total of 55 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution though only 05 witnesses have been examined so far. As per the provisions of Sec. 437(6) Cr.P.C. if the trial in a case triable by the Court of a Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, then, the accused person who is in custody ought to be granted the concession of regular bail. He further contends that the prosecution witnesses examined thus far have never made any complaint to the Post Office officials regarding any fraud or financial mismanagement on the part of the petitioner and directly approached the Police authorities for registration of the case. It cannot be believed that the various account holders were for the last 4-5 years depositing the money with the accused but never chose to approach the Post Office in order to verify the fact of the deposit of the money on their behalf by the petitioner and the co-accused. It is further contended that no recovery was effected from either of the accused and thus, keeping in view the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail.