AB 2943/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BARUAH Heard Mr. R.Islam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. One, Sri Monowar Hussain alleging misappropriation of huge amount of pub lic money by resorting to malpractices and fraudulent activities by a group of o fficials since last several years of the Union Co-operative Bank Ltd., erstwhile ASCARD Bank. Ltd., Guwahati requested Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Inves tigation (Economic Offence), Ulubari, Guwahati -7 to conduct a discreet inquiry thereto and bring the arraying officials to book. Such inquiry is sought by Pari khit Sonowal by placing a letter with the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of In vestigation (Economic Offence), Ulubari, Guwahati on 11-3-2010. It is also indic ated in the letter, for utilizing of public money illegally by the arraying offi cials of the Union 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 n o investigation was conducted. It is also alleged in the letter that as a result of misappropriation of huge amount of public money, the employees, depositors, customers are facing lot of problems. The Superintendent of Police, Bureau of I nvestigation (Economic Offence) after receipt of the letter directed an inquiry to be conducted by an Officer of the department. One Nalin Ch. Borah, Inspector of police, BI(EO) conducted preliminary inquiry and submitted a report with the Superintendent of Police, B.I.(E.O.), Assam, Guwahati on 26-04-2010. On the basi s of the report as well as the letter addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bur eau of Investigation (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 case as indicated above, one Moni Gogoi and another namely Someswar Haza rika were arrested 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. Islam, learned counsel taking a cue of the facts as indicated above submitte d that there is no allegation forthcoming as against the petitioner of any malpr actice or fraudulent activities and misappropriation of the money of the bank. I ndicating the report submitted by Sri P.C. Borpujari, retired District and Sessi ons Judge, Special Officer appointed by the High Court, Mr. Islam also contended that his report does not reflect anything as against the present petitioner. Mr . P.C. Barpujari’s report indicates collection of huge amount by selling of shar es during the period 2001 -2002 from a number of persons by granting proper rece ipts under signature of Sri Sanat Kalita, the then Area Manager, ASCARD Bank Ltd . But despite collection of such huge amount he did not deposit the amount so co llected which resulted non-inclusion of the names of the share holders in the li st of share holders of the bank. It also indicates collection of shares without granting any receipt therefore from some other persons whose names find place in the report. The report submitted by Nalin Ch. Borah, the Inspector of Police, B IEO also indicates the name of the present petitioner as one of the executives o f the Union Co-operative Bank Limited. It is shown in the report that he was dis charging 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 b ank indicating therein that the Executive Committee shown less amount in the acc ounts which is much less than the amount indicated in the provisional certificat es issued to the customers, in other words, the Executive Committee though reali zed a heavy amount from the customers but shown less deposit in the account ther eby cheated the customers and misappropriated crores of public money. Mr. Islam submitted before this Court that the allegations which find place in the report of the Inspector of Police is a wild allegation without any description, stateme nt etc. It was further submitted by Mr. Islam that in a such a case the prosecut ion would entirely be dependent upon some documents and in the meantime perhaps the Investigating Officer must have collected those documents for the purpose of prosecution. It was submitted by Mr. Islam, learned counsel that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Resisting the prayer of Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. representing the State respondent v ehemently submitted that grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this junc ture would prejudice the investigation of the case. The instant case being relat ed to misappropriation of huge amount of money, a detail investigation is requir ed to unearth the truth and nab the culprits. The Investigating Agency till date having not reached to that stage, grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner wo uld considerably effect the investigation of the case. Mr. Gogoi, therefore, pra ys 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.Accordingly,the interim protection provid ed vide order dated 21.9.11 is made absolute with the following conditions : 1) That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 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 Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, without written permission of the learned 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 .