Santosh Kumar Singh v. Director Enforcement , Allahabad

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13829 of 2023 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- Director Enforcement , Allahabad Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Prakarsh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Srivastava Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records.

¶2The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Complaint Case No.02 of 2018, Sessions Case No.278 of 2023, ECIR No.07/VSI/2012, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, registered at Police Station Enforcement Directorate, District Lucknow.

¶3Initially the C.B.I. had received a complaint from the Regional Manager, Ballia Etawah Gramin Bank, Ballia alleging that the then Branch Manager-Chandra Prakash Singh in connivance with some bank official and private persons caused wrongful loss to the bank by making fraudulent transactions. The C.B.I. has submitted a charge sheet on 30.06.2011 against five persons including the applicant. The Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR on 06.01.2012 and complaint has been lodged on 16.09.2017.

¶4The applicant's statement under Section 50 has already been recorded, which indicates that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation.

¶5The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court towards the averments made in the complaint, wherein it is stated that the applicant had made fraudulent withdrawals of Rs.2,00,000/- which were transferred to his account. It is recorded in the complaint itself that the scrutiny of the applicant's bank account revealed that Rs.2,00,000/- were withdrawn by him on 12.12.2008 but the Branch Manager of the Bank intimated that credit transfer voucher for Rs.2,00,000/- credited in the account of the applicant was not available in the records of the bank.

¶6The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the money had been transferred to the applicant fraudulently. He has submitted that it was the amount transferred by his employer M/s Super Egg of which co-accused person Avinash Kumar Rai was the proprietor. The co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh who was the then Manager of the Bank has died during pendency of the proceedings and the proceedings against him stands abated.

¶7The learned counsel for the respondent-E.D. has filed a counter affidavit and he has submitted that the applicant has been convicted of the scheduled offence and therefore he is not entitled to be granted bail in the present case as his guilt stands established.

¶8Replying to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been convicted on the basis of his own confession because the applicant was not in position to contest the case due to his poverty.

¶9Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the only allegation against the applicant is regarding withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- made from his bank account on 12.12.2008 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the amount had been transferred to his account fraudulently; that the co-accused Avinash Kumar Rai has already been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3231 of 2023; that the applicant has no previous criminal history besides the scheduled offence and he is languishing in jail since 06.10.2023 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶10Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶11Let the applicant-Santosh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 23.11.2023 Ram. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench