In BAIL APPLN. 66/2023-DEL HC- Allegations relate to many bank transactions including misappropriation from accounts of several customers: Delhi HC refuses to grant bail to suspended Deputy Manager of SBI in funds misappropriation case
Justice Jyoti Singh [19-12-2023]

Read Order: RUPASHREE MAJUMDER v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO SAFDARJUNG

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 2, 2024: In a case of misappropriation of funds, the Delhi High Court has rejected the bail application of a suspended Bank Manager who was involved in multiple unauthorized transactions and financial irregularities.

The application in question was preferred on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail pertaining to an E-FIR registered under Sections 409/420 IPC.

The factual background of this case was that the Petitioner was posted from 11.06.2019 to 22.07.2022 as Deputy Manager at SBI, Green Park Extension and was transferred to SBI, South Campus Branch where she was harassed due to personal grudge of the Branch Manager. Petitioner had been falsely implicated for misappropriation of funds and even a departmental inquiry had been initiated on account of which Petitioner has been placed under suspension.

Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (IO) gave notice to the Petitioner to join investigation alleging that investigation revealed that fixed deposits (FDs) worth Rs.1.35 crore were found in the name of the Petitioner in the Green Park Branch between 2019 to 2022, while she was posted as Deputy Manager.

It was the petitioner’s case that the prosecution was malicious as Petitioner had no role in the alleged misappropriation. In any case, investigation was based on documentary evidence alone and Petitioner was willing to join investigation. It was further submitted that bail is rule and jail is an exception and since no custodial interrogation was required, Petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Referring to State Rep. By The C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others; Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, the single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh opined that the factors to be taken into account while considering grant of anticipatory bail are prima facie case against the accused; nature of offence; and severity of the punishment.

The Bench took note of the fact that in Haresh Kumar Choudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant was required.

It was observed by the Bench that the petitioner was involved in multiple unauthorized transactions and financial irregularities, amounting to misappropriation etc. As per the allegations made by the Complainant, Petitioner was accused of fraudulently opening a PPF account in the name of her mother and wrongfully debiting a Banker’s cheque/DD in the name of SBI, Green Park Extension to the tune of Rs.7,94,292, in addition to another fraudulent FDR of Rs 1.35 crore in the name of Petitioner’s mother.

“It appears that the Petitioner has not been co-operating in the investigation, on one pretext or other. The allegations are serious and relate to many bank transactions including alleged misappropriation from the accounts of several customers. The Bank has brought forth that during investigation in the office of the Bank, Petitioner had destroyed several important and crucial documents and thus there is an apprehension that she would abscond if granted protection and will not join and co-operate in investigation”, the Bench opined.

It was further held by the Bench that the contention that Petitioner has joined departmental proceedings cannot be the sole reason to come to a conclusion that she would co-operate in the investigation, However, this stand couldn’t be accepted considering that in the past, Petitioner had avoided joining investigation.

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed, making it clear that Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case”, the Bench ordered.