In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, underlining the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Manish Kumar, the Chief Cashier of a bank implicated in a significant embezzlement case. The court made a crucial observation that counsel can only argue facts that are specifically pleaded in the anticipatory bail application, setting a precedent that emphasizes the importance of precise and well-documented pleadings in such cases.
Background of the Case
The case at hand involves Manish Kumar, who serves as the Chief Cashier in a bank located in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. The controversy began when Sunil Kumar Tiwari, an Assistant Treasurer Officer, deposited a substantial amount of Rs. 39,34,489 in the bank. However, the receipt provided by Manish Kumar reflected only Rs. 11,34,489, leading to a discrepancy of Rs. 28 lakhs. The incident led to the lodging of an FIR (Case Crime No. 278 of 2024) under Sections 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code at Prem Nagar Police Station, Jhansi.
Manish Kumar, in his anticipatory bail application, argued that the remaining amount of Rs. 28 lakhs was taken away by the Security Guard, Yogendra Singh, and that this transaction was captured on the bank’s CCTV. However, this claim became a focal point of the court’s scrutiny.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Scope of Arguments in Anticipatory Bail Applications: The core legal issue revolved around whether counsel can introduce new facts during arguments that were not explicitly mentioned in the anticipatory bail application. This point became critical when the counsel for Manish Kumar referred to the CCTV footage during the hearing, which was not initially included in the pleadings.
2. Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail: The court also evaluated whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds to qualify for anticipatory bail. Given the gravity of the alleged offense and the nature of the accusations, the court had to determine if Manish Kumarโs case met the stringent requirements necessary for such relief.
Courtโs Decision and Observations
The judgment, delivered by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, was unequivocal in its stance. The court made it clear that “a counsel can only argue a fact which has been pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application. A counsel is not authorized to make statements of fact which have not been specifically pleaded.” This observation was crucial, as it reinforced the importance of thorough and precise documentation in legal pleadings, particularly in anticipatory bail applications.
The court further noted that no material evidence, such as the alleged CCTV footage or vouchers, was produced to support Manish Kumar’s claims. The court stated, “Neither before this Court any vouchers have been produced nor any other material has been produced to indicate the innocence of the applicant.” This lack of supporting evidence significantly weakened Manish Kumarโs application.
In conclusion, the court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be exercised only in exceptional cases. The court highlighted that the allegations against Manish Kumar were serious and that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify the granting of anticipatory bail. The judgment noted that “the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused in the present case would have an adverse impact on the protection of rights and interest of the informant/complainant/victim.”
Also Read
Ultimately, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed, with the court declaring that “a person who has committed an offense is not entitled to the grant of discretionary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail unless it is shown that the accused is falsely implicated or is entitled to protection of liberty.”
The case number for this judgment is CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 6730 of 2024, with the applicant being Manish Kumar and the State of U.P. as the opposite party. The counsel representing Manish Kumar was Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha, while the State was represented by the Government Advocate (G.A.). The order was passed on August 13, 2024.
