AB 2806/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BARUAH Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B . Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. One, Sri Parikshat Sonowal of Tengakaht, P.S. Tengakaht, Distric t Dibrugarh, Assam alleging misappropriation of huge amount of public money by r esorting to malpractices and fraudulent activities by a group of officials since last several years of the Union Co-operative Bank Ltd., erstwhile ASCARD Bank. Ltd., Guwahati requested Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Econ omic Offence), Ulubari, Guwahati -7 to conduct a discreet inquiry thereto and br ing the arraying officials to book. Such inquiry is sought by Parikhit Sonowal b y placing a letter with the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (E conomic Offence), Ulubari, Guwahati on 11-3-2010. It is also indicated in the le tter, for utilizing of public money illegally by the arraying officials of the U nion Co-operative Bank Ltd., a request was made by letter No. SAU Co-op. BKP/CHB /122/09 dated 08-12-2009, but despite receipt of the said letter no investigati on was conducted. It is also alleged in the letter that as a result of misapprop riation of huge amount of public money, the employees, depositors, customers are facing lot of problems. The Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigatio n (Economic Offence) after receipt of the letter directed an inquiry to be condu cted by an Officer of the department. One Nalin Ch. Borah, Inspector of police, BI(EO) conducted preliminary inquiry and submitted a report with the Superintend ent of Police, B.I.(E.O.), Assam, Guwahati on 26-04-2010. On the basis of the re port as well as the letter addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Inve stigation (Economic Offence) by Parikshit Sonowal, BIEO P.S. Case No. 7 of 2011 was registered under Section 120(B)/406/420 IPC. During investigation of the cas e as indicated above, one Moni Gogoi and another namely Someswar Hazarika were a rrested on the ground of availability of sufficient materials against them. The petitioner being apprehensive of his arrest filed this instant p etition under Section 438 CrPC praying this Court to provide him pre-arrest bail in the case as indicated above. It would be appropriate to state that Moni Gogo i and Sri Someswar Hazarika were produced on 3-9-2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, (metro), Guwahati after their arrest. This case as can be f ound from the petition is that the petitioner initially was an employee of a com pany under the name and style Krishna Credit Company Ltd. , a non banking finan cial institution having its head office at 4, Synagague Street, Kolkata, which h ad 25 branches operating in the State of Assam. As the time passed on, the head office Kolkata stopped supervision and control over the said branches which comp elled the branches to function independently without any controlling authority. By that time an association was formed under the name and style Manager’s Assoc iation, Assam, KCCL to protect and safeguard the interest of the depositors an d the employees as well. The association as stated above thereafter approached t he Government of Assam for Provincialisation of the 25 branches by writing vario us letters and as a result, Government of Assam decided to merge 25 branches wit h the Assam State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (for short ASCARD Bank) in the year 2002 and entered into an agreement, pursuant to which the 25 branches started functioning under the Deposit Wing under the ASCAR D Bank. However, the ADCARD declared its disassociation with the aforesaid wings as nomenclated and functioned. In the meantime, one Sri R.C Kar along with 3(th ree) others filed a PIL before this High Court against the ASCARD Bank which cam e to be registered as PIL No. 2454 of 1995, wherein it was alleged that the Silc har Branch of the ASCARD Bank failed to make payment against the deposit held wi th KCCL, Silchar branch. In the aforesaid PIL, the Manager’s Association of ASCA RD Bank impleaded itself as respondent and prayed the court to allow them to fun ction as co-operative with their 25 branches. In view of the prayer so made the High Court directed the Reserve Bank of India ( for short RBI) to submit its vie w on the proposal of Manager’s Association. RBI accordingly submitted its report and after perusal of the same, the High Court directed the RBI to make an audit of the branches of the ASCARD bank by a chartered accountant. The RBI submitted its audit report indicating therein loss amounting to Rs. 6,00,66,903/- (rupees six crores sixty six thousands nine hundred three) and suggested for constituti on of an Interim Board of Management. The Interim Board of Management was consti tuted headed by one Sri Motiur Rahman, as Chief Executive Officer along with fou r other. The aforesaid Interim Board of Management took the responsibility of mo bilizing the amount of Rs. 668 lakhs, which ultimately achieved. The High Court appreciating the Board for its achievement was pleased to dissolve the Interim B oard of Management and appointed Sri P.C. Barpujari, a retired District and Sess ions Judge as Special Officer to look after the affairs of the bank independentl y. The aforesaid mobilized amount of Rs. 668 lakhs was put under deposit scheme with the SBI, Guwahati under special term deposit. In the meantime, another PIL was initiated by Sadow Assam Union Co-operative Bank thorough its General Secret ary for implementation of various guidelines for proper functioning of the bank in which the petitioner is also made a party as respondent No. 10. It is contend ed in the petitioner that till date no adverse comment is made against the petit ioner by this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid PIL, Parikhit Sonowal filed the complainant with the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Ulubari, Guwahati- 7 alleging misappropriation, malpractice and fraudulent activities of the officers of the bank. Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel taking a cue of the facts as indicated above sub mitted that there is no allegation forthcoming as against the petitioner of any malpractice or fraudulent activities and misappropriation of the money of the ba nk. Indicating the report submitted by Sri P.C. Borpujari, retired District and Sessions Judge, Special Officer appointed by the High Court, Mr. D. Das also con tended that his report does not reflect anything as against the present petition er. Mr. P.C. Barpujari’s report indicates collection of huge amount by selling o f shares during the period 2001 -2002 from a number of persons by granting prope r receipts under signature of Sri Sanat Kalita, the then Area Manager, ASCARD Ba nk Ltd. But despite collection of such huge amount he did not deposit the amount so collected which resulted non-inclusion of the names of the share holders in the list of share holders of the bank. It also indicates collection of shares wi thout granting any receipt therefor from some other persons whose names find pla ce in the report. The report submitted by Nalin Ch. Borah, the Inspector of Poli ce, BIEO also indicates the name of the present petitioner as one of the executi ves of the Union Co-operative Bank Limited. It is shown in the report that he wa s discharging his duties as executive officer of the Executive Committee of the Bank. In the report an allegation is brought against the Executive Committee of the bank indicating therein that the Executive Committee shown less amount in th e accounts which is much less than the amount indicated in the provisional certi ficates issued to the customers, in other words, the Executive Committee though realized a heavy amount from the customers but shown less deposit in the account thereby cheated the customers and misappropriated crores of public money. Mr. D as submitted before this Court that the allegations which find place in the repo rt of the Inspector of Police is a wild allegation without any description, stat ement etc. It was further submitted by Mr. Das that in a such a case the prosecu tion would entirely be dependent upon some documents and in the meantime perhaps the Investigating Officer must have collected those documents for the purpose o f prosecution. It was submitted by Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel that the peti tioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Resisting the prayer of Mr. D. Das, learn ed Sr. counsel, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. representing the State respon dent vehemently submitted that grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at thi s juncture would prejudice the investigation of the case. The instant case being related to misappropriation of huge amount of money, a detail investigation is required to unearth the truth and nab the culprits. The Investigating Agency til l date having not reached to that stage, grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitio ner would considerably effect the investigation of the case. Mr. Gogoi, therefor e, prays for rejection of the bail application made under Section 438 CrPC. In view of the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties , the materials available in the case diary are carefully perused. From the peru sal of the case diary it appears to this Court that the Investigating Officer du ring the investigation collected various documents from various angles. Investig ation appears to have started on and from 27-1-2011. The case diary indicates in vestigation of the case till 12-9-2011. This goes to show that Investigating Age ncy has got enough time to go into detail investigation. Nine months have alread y elapsed from the start of the investigation till date. Therefore, in view of t he stage of the investigation, this Court does not consider it necessary that cu stodial detention of the petitioner would be necessary for the purpose of invest igation. The prosecution would certainly depend upon documentary evidence and mo st of the documents being seized, the bail application does not warrant rejectio n. Taking note of all the facts in its entirety, this Court finds no reason to disa gree with the prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner is provided bail which re ads as under. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case as referred to above, he shall be released on bail for Rs. 20,000/- with two sur eties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions : 1) That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period o f seven days from today. 2. That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade hi m from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer ; and 3) That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, without written permission of the l earned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam. Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the ba il without notice. With the aforesaid directions the bail application stands disposed of .