Rajat Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The present is a petition under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 on behalf of the applicant/accused Rajat Sharma seeking bail in FIR No.10/2014 registered at Police Station- EOW, Mandir Marg under Sections 409/420/120B IPC.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.11.2014 and that the subject charge-sheet has been filed on 29.12.2014 after thorough investigation.

3. Mr Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 2015:DHC:3593-DB applicant, has urged that there are no allegations against the applicant, who was the Bank Manager, having accepted any illegal gratification. Next it has been urged by Mr Pahwa that the beneficiaries of the subject loans against deposit of gold have already been enlarged on bail by this court by way of order dated 16.01.2015. Further it is argued by Mr Pahwa that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing at an early date since the CFSL report with respect to the gold deposit is still awaited. Furthermore it has been urged that the beneficiaries to the subject loans are yet to be charge-sheeted. Finally it is urged by Mr Pahwa that the applicant has been in custody for a period of over five months and his two minor children aged about 10 and 3 years respectively are being subjected to undue harassment in the absence of their only bread earner.

4. On the contrary, it has been urged by Ms Isha Khanna, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, that the applicant, who was the Manager of the branch not only exceeded his financial limits but got appointed a relative of the beneficiaries as an appraiser qua the subject loans. It is also urged by Ms Khanna that the applicant is guilty of conspiracy inasmuch as he was responsible for extending loans to the beneficiaries when he was the Branch Manager in Karol Bagh and continued to benefit the same persons when he was shifted to the Connaught Place branch. It is lastly urged by Ms Khanna that it would be possible for the trial court to frame charges against the applicant in the subject FIR.

5. The applicant herein is accused to have sanctioned loans amounting to Rs.11 crores against spurious gold ornaments to the accused beneficiaries in connivance with bank panel appraiser. It is alleged that the applicant had sanctioned the said loans without prior consent of the bank operational manager superseding the guidelines of the bank.

6. In a landmark decision reported as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2012 (1) SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has crystallized the law in respect of regular bails as under:-

7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pre-conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty.

8. In the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the chargesheet has already been filed cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore there is no hint or allegation that the accused is a flight risk; nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, in my view, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the beneficiaries in the subject transaction have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court; and the applicant has already been in custody for over five months. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions.