- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for the C.B.I. and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. The applicant is in jail since 8.3.2010 for an offence in Case No. 10 of 2009 R.C. No. 0072008A 0013 under section 420, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B I.P.C. read with sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station C.B.I., Dehradun.
(2.) It appears that the applicant was working as Special Assistant in the UCO Bank in Civil Lines Branch at Moradabad when a first information report was lodged by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank alleging that while working as such during the period 2007-08, he abused his official position and fraudulently debited account of the general ledger account of the Bank, inter branch credit note etc. and also various saving bank account of customers and with the connivance of his family and another officer of the Bank defrauded and misappropriated a sum of Rs.97,83,652/- from the Bank and when the aforesaid fraudulent misappropriation was detected during reconciliation, he tried to cover up his fraudulent act and debited some more saving bank accounts of customers and credited the saving bank accounts of customers unauthorizedly causing wrongful pecuniary loss to the Bank and gain to himself and his family members.
(3.) It is urged that the entire prosecution version is fabricated and the applicant is innocent and in fact he could not have known the password of other officials which was changeable after 15 days and he had no authority to pass voucher of the amount mentioned therein and despite the fact that he has remained in jail since March, 2010, even charge has not been framed. A perusal of the record shows that there is voluminous evidence to connect the applicant with the fraudulent transaction which ultimately caused him and his family benefit at the cost of the Bank and other customers. In fact, after detection of the fraud, he made several transactions to make good the loss but in vain. The applicant who holds a post of trust, is prima-facie connected with the fraud. In fact, a co-accused Shashi Bala Sharma, who was not even named in the first information report, has been refused bail by a reasoned order of this Hon'ble Court on 28.5.2010. It is also apparent from the record that the charge could not be framed due to the applicant himself as he was insisting that he should be heard on the charges along with other co-accused, who were able to get the proceeding stalled and the court had to pass an order on 5.7.2011 separating his trial and date has been fixed for hearing on charges.;