THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.6544/2017 JABALPUR Dated : 14.02.2018 Shri [ENTITY] Sr. Advocate with Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicant. Shri [ENTITY], learned Deputy Govt Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the objector. Arguments heard.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for grant of bail in connection with [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Dhabora, District Rewa against him for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. Let it be noted that the coordinate bench of this court had dismissed the applicant's first three bail applications filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on merits vide order dated 27.06.2016, 12.09.2016 and 04.01.2017 in [CASE NUMBER].
3. According to the prosecution, on 29.12.2015, complainant [ENTITY], the Branch Manager of District Central Co-operative Bank Rewa, Branch Dabhaura (for short "the branch") has lodged the FIR alleging that during the period between 31.04.2013 and 31.03.2015 co-accused namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were posted as Branch Managers and co-accused namely, [ENTITY] and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Ravendra Singh Tomar were posted as Clerks in the Branch. They having entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons including the applicant, had misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 6,41,88,475/- (Six Crore Forty One Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five Rupees) of the Branch by means of various modes of transfer of money. The specific allegations against the applicant is that out of the said amount, he defrauded the Branch to the tune of Rs.67,56,986/- (Sixty Seven Lac Fifty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Rupees) by means of forged FDRs and pay-orders with the help of aforesaid employees/co-accused of the Branch.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's first bail application was dismissed at the time when the charge-sheet in the case was not filed. He further submits that the applicant filed the second bail application on the ground of delay in trial of the case. This Court dismissed the said application giving certain directions to the learned trial Judge and the prosecuting agency. Thereafter applicant again filed third bail application on the ground of delay. That bail application was also dismissed by this Court giving some directions to the trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2017 for speedy trial of the case. Even then learned trial Court has failed to conclude the trial as yet. Applicant is in custody since 23.01.2016 and trial is still going on. So applicant be released on bail. In this regard he placed reliance on the Apex Court Judgment passed in [PRECEDENT] and Judgment passed in [PRECEDENT] and he further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Rewa District, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding if he is released on bail during the trial of the case. On that ground he prays to grant bail to the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer on the ground that the applicant cheated [ENTITY], the Branch Manager of the District Central Co- operative Bank Rewa, Branch Dabhaura and embezzled the amount to the tune of Rs.67,56,986/- (Sixty seven lac fifty six thousand nine hundred eighty six rupees) which is a huge amount. The statements of only nine witnesses have been recorded so far by the trial Court. So it cannot be said that learned trial Judge is not trying to dispose of the case expeditiously. There is a possibility of absconding of accused, if released on bail. So he should not be released on bail.
6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by learned counsel for both the parties. This is the forth bail application of the applicant. Earlier three bail applications had already been rejected by this Court on merits. Earlier also two bail applications of the applicant were rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court on merits which were filed on the ground of delay. After considering whole facts and circumstances of the case, although the trial is still going on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH but it also appears from the record that the prosecution gave the list of only 19 witnesses out of which statements of 9 witnesses have already been recorded by the trial Court till 26.10.2017. So it cannot be said that learned Trial Court is not trying to dispose of the case expeditiously. Except the custody period, there is no change in circumstances.
7. The judgement of apex court passed in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) has already been considered by the coordinate bench of this court in its earlier order. The facts of the cases [PRECEDENT] (supra) do not match with the present case in that case crime registered for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and as per prosecution case accused/ appellant had issued a cheque for Rs. 18 lakhs in favour of the complainant (returning a part of the amount of Rs. 37 lakhs) but had stopped payment of that cheque. While in this case crime registered against applicant for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. and it is alleged that applicant in canavianse of other accused cheated bank and misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 6,41,88,475/- (Six Crore Forty One Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five Rupees) in which applicant embezzled the amount to the tune of Rs.67,56,986/- (Sixty seven lac fifty six thousand nine hundred eighty six rupees). So that judgement also do not help much to the applicant.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
8. Apex court in the case of [PRECEDENT] observed "While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal cases the court should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case (See: [PRECEDENT]). It is also a well established principle that while considering the ratio laid down in one case, the court will have to bear in mind that every judgement must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true. Since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it."
9. The coordinate bench of this court had dismissed the applicant's first three bail applications filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on merits vide order dated 27.06.2016, 12.09.2016 and 04.01.2017 in [CASE NUMBER]. Thereafter, there is no change in the circumstances except the period of detention. But only on that ground applicant is not entitled to get bail. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] held THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex court in the case of [PRECEDENT] observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and various other judgments.
10. So looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected. It is expected from the trial Court to conclude the trial as earlier as possible.
Certified copy as per rules.
([ENTITY]) Judge vs Date: 2018.02.16 12:19:02 +05'30'