SUSHILA MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED /petitioner who is in custody in this case since 18.03.2013 has sought regular bail. The allegations being faced by her are that she along with eight other persons created a Non Government Organization by the name of Manav Sewa Sansthan (in short referred to as, 'NGO') and she became its president. As per the policy of the State, this NGO entered into an arrangement for Micro Insurance with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (who are the complainants) by way of financial security to weaker sections of the society. It is alleged that the NGO entered into an agreement with the LIC to abide by IRDA regulations and the instructions issued from time to time by the LIC. It is during the course of events under the garb of contributing their lot towards Micro Insurance as agents of the LIC prescribed these policies to more than 725 anganwari workers and for subscribing of these policies by the poor workers had been collecting premiums which were not deposited with the LIC and as a consequence of which renewal of the policies could not be made, as a result of which a sum of '1.60 crores so subscribed by the policy holders by way of premium etc. were not deposited and on the complaint of the Deputy Manager, Micro Insurance LIC, the present case got registered and it was highlighted that the accused had also been issuing fake receipts to the policy holders.

(2.) THE contentions of Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate representing the petitioner that there is no specific role attributed to the present petitioner as neither there is any entrustment to her nor she ever interacted directly with any of the policy holders and rather the Micro Insurance agents were responsible for this and has prayed that similarly placed persons have already been allowed regular bail and cited 'Sanjay Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 2 RCR(Cri) 405'; 'Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2013 3 RCR(Cri) 854'; 'Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2011 4 RCR(Cri) 898'; 'Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 3 RCR(Cri) 291'; 'Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2013 82 AllCriC 867'; 'Mahmood Mohammed Sayeed v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 AIR(SC) 482' and 'Rajinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab' (CRM -M No.25363 of 2014 decided on 27.08.2014).

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has contended that the trial Court has already framed charges and that the petitioner being the principal accused and mastermind behind this syndicate and the fact that if allowed bail she would tamper with the evidence. Learned trial Court has already framed charges. The allegations prima facie reflect an element of conspiracy between various functionaries of the NGO. The arguments raised by the petitioner's counsel are matter of evidence. The apprehension of the State that if allowed bail the petitioner will tamper with the evidence being not unfounded. In the light of the enormosity of the scandal which has larger public ramifications and the fact that such type of frauds have attained notoriety in the country, societal needs does not calls for grant of bail and therefore, the cited ratios do not come to the aid of the petitioner.