CRM-M-24841-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-25018-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-35151-2011 (O&M) :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-24841-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2011 Arpinder Singh Sehgal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents (2) CRM-M-25018-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2011 Sulakhan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents (3) CRM-M-35151-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-24841-2011). Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-25018-2011. Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-35151-2011. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the CBI. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-24841-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-25018-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-35151-2011 (O&M) :::::::: CRM-M-24841-2011 titled as `Arpinder Singh Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab and another' [for short “first petition”], CRM-M-25018-2011 titled as `Sulakhan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another' [for short “second petition”] and CRM-M-35151-2011 titled as `Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' [for short “third petition”] wherein all the petitioner(s) have prayed for regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.80 dated 05.05.2009, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of IPC at Police Station City, Kotkapura. The petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions are the senior officers/staff of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kotkapura [hereinafter referred to as “the bank”] against whom the allegations are of embezzlement and causing loss to the bank to the tune of `4,87,57,342.08/-. The petitioner in the first petition was the Senior Manager; petitioner no.1 in the second petition was the Head Cashier; petitioner no.2 was the Cashier, whereas the petitioner in the third petition was the Head Cashier in the bank. There were total 9 accused named in the FIR, out of whom the aforesaid four petitioners are in jail; one co-accused, namely, Surjit Singh, Rural Development Officer, was released on bail and is absconding; co-accused Paramjit Singh Daftari has passed away and 3 more co-accused, namely, Jagmohan Singh Kochhar, A.S.Chawla and Gurcharan Singh have not been arrested as they are allegedly absconding. The petitioner in the first petition is in custody since 02.08.2009 and the petitioners in the second and third petitions are in custody since 31.10.2009. The petitioner in the first petition had earlier applied for bail before this Court vide CRM-M-25831-2009 which was dismissed on 12.11.2009 at that stage. Both the petitioners in the second petition had also earlier applied for bail vide CRM-M-24202-2011 and CRM-M-23649-2011 which were got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.10.2010 at that stage, whereas the petitioner in the third petition did not earlier apply for bail. When the notice was issued in the first petition, the Court had also directed the Registry to call for a detailed progress report of the case from the Trial Court. On the adjourned date of hearing, the Court had observed that “it may also be mentioned here that progress report of this case was called from learned trial Court and it has been informed by CRM-M-24841-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-25018-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-35151-2011 (O&M) :::::::: learned trial Court that the case is not being proceeded as one of the co- accused, Surjit Singh jumped bail and he absented from the court on 28.02.2011. He was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. He filed Crl. Misc. No.M-16646 of 2011 before this Court and this Court directed the said accused to appear before the trial Court and to furnish bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, in compliance of the said order passed by this Court, Surjit Singh did not appear before learned trial Court and hence, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the trial Court. He again approached this Court and obtained interim anticipatory bail and never appeared before the trial Court. Hence, learned trial Court could not proceed further with this case”. It is also pertinent to mention that the bank had filed CRM-M-34998-2009 for transfer of the investigation of the case to the CBI in terms of a Circular dated 30.03.2005 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India and the guidelines dated 01.07.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. That petition was allowed on 21.09.2011 and this Court had handed over the investigation to the CBI with a direction to complete it within 6 months from the date of taking it over. In view thereof, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the first petition had requested this Court to implead CBI as a respondent on his oral request, which was allowed. The CBI had put in appearance through its counsel and has also filed reply with a miscellaneous application, which has been allowed and the reply is taken on record. In the second and third petition also, the CBI was also impleaded as a party and they have filed its reply through miscellaneous applications. All these applications are allowed and the replies are taken on record in both the cases. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner in the first petition is in custody from the last about 2 years and 4 months, whereas the petitioners in the second and third petitions are in custody from the last about 2 years and 2 months. It is also submitted that the challan was presented by the police but the trial did not make any headway, as noticed by this Court in order dated 27.09.2011. It is further submitted that now the matter has been handed over to the CBI CRM-M-24841-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-25018-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-35151-2011 (O&M) :::::::: which would cause protracted trial and eventual incarceration of the petitioners in a case where documentary evidence would decide their fate. In support of their submissions, they have relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 1 (2002) CCR 178 (SC), Byrraju Ramaa Raju v. State through the Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No.2012 of 2011, decided on 04.11.2011 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2011(6) Recent Apex Judgments 191. It is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in the first petition was of lack of supervision and not of embezzlement. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI has submitted that the petitioner in the first petition had approved and released the payments of lacs of rupees in conspiracy with Surjit Singh (on bail) and as such, he cannot profess innocence in the act of embezzlement. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the second petition were the Head Cashier and the Cashier respectively, whereas the petitioner in the third petition was also the Head Cashier in the bank. However, he did not dispute that they are in custody for a long time and the trial could not make any headway/progress. I have head learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the facts that the petitioners are in custody for more than 2 years; the entire record of the bank of the relevant period is already in custody of the CBI and the trial is not making any headway, I deem all these 3 cases to be fit for grant of bail to the petitioners and hence all the 3 petitions are allowed and the petitioners therein are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds alongwith two local sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is also observed that any observation made hereinbefore shall not be construed to be an observation on the merits of the case. December 14, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge