Decided on-: 10th January 2023
BENCH -: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
FACTS
The Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Faridabad, lodged a complaint dated 17.02.2003 with the Police, alleging that the petitioner was assigned by M/s. Virmati Software and Telecommunication Ltd. to maintain the Software System provided to the bank. In the course of providing these services, the petitioner had access to the bank's computerized accounting system and possessed the capability to make entries into ledgers and various accounts. During a review of files, bank officials discovered certain irregularities. Subsequent investigation revealed that the accused-petitioner had manipulated entries by falsifying and creating fictitious entries within the computer system. This manipulation involved transferring amounts from one account to another using the software, resulting in the diversion of funds from the bank's accounts to the petitioner's advantage. The accused knowingly and intentionally withdrew an amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the bank through these forged entries. Upon inquiry, it was established that the accused had committed forgery and tampered with the bank's computer system to unlawfully withdraw funds, causing financial gain to himself and inflicting financial losses upon the bank.
ISSUES
Whether the accused manipulated computerized records, forged entries, and caused wrongful gain to himself while inflicting wrongful loss on the bank.
Whether there was evidence of the accused being entrusted with the amount in question.
Whether the accused unlawfully tampered with electronic records and committed offenses related to computer systems.
·Whether circumstantial evidence and the overall case build a prima facie case against the accused.
Whether the accused's prompt repayment absolves him of the charges related to wrongful loss.
JUDGMENT
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the allegations against the petitioner carry substantial gravity and indicate a likelihood that the petitioner might flee if granted bail. Additionally, the charges against the petitioner have not yet been formally framed. The court noted that an initial compromise was reached between the involved parties on 15.02.2021. However, despite this compromise, the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured, suggesting a dishonest intention on the petitioner's part to evade repayment. Considering these discussions and observing the petitioner's conduct, the Court concludes that there are no grounds justifying the concession of regular bail for the petitioner.
Comments