Ajay Kumar Manchanda vs. State Of Delhi

Facts

The applicant, Ajay Kumar Manchanda, is accused in FIR No. 834/2021, registered on December 27, 2021, under Sections 420, 408, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The alleged offenses occurred between June 2020 and October 2020. The applicant was arrested on September 10, 2022, and is currently in judicial custody. The FIR stems from a complaint by an ex-employer who alleges the applicant, her former accountant, fraudulently transferred approximately Rs. 3.5 Lakhs from her savings account and Rs. 39.59 Lakhs from her overdraft account to his own account without her knowledge. The overdraft account incurred significant interest. The applicant also allegedly misappropriated funds for GST payments to third parties and changed the complainant's contact details with the bank. A previous bail application was rejected on March 3, 2023.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is a fit case for release on bail. The dispute is based on documentary evidence, minimizing the risk of tampering. The applicant has been in custody for over ten months, and with charges yet to be framed, the trial is likely to be lengthy. Keeping him incarcerated until then is deemed impractical, especially as guilt has not been proven. The Court noted that the investigation is underway and unhampered, with most material witnesses examined. Crucially, the applicant's nominal roll shows no prior antecedents and a satisfactory record in jail. Therefore, the Court directed the applicant's release on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including not leaving Delhi without permission, surrendering his passport, appearing in court, joining investigations, maintaining working mobile numbers, reporting to the IO monthly, and not indulging in criminal activity or contacting witnesses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the nature of the allegations, the evidence, and the stage of the investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant has no prior antecedents and claims false implication with vague allegations. He argues it's improbable the complainant was unaware of transactions over five months and that he couldn't alter bank details without her written consent. He also points to an inordinate delay in FIR registration and relies on *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* and *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* regarding arrest procedures. He asserts no tampering or recovery is possible as investigation is complete. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposes bail, stating the applicant admitted to transactions and offered property transfer as compensation. Bank accounts revealed inter-se transactions. The applicant confessed to losing money in multi-level marketing schemes and admitted to changing the complainant's mobile number via a bank employee. Enquiries revealed no mandatory written request for detail changes. Bail is opposed due to pending investigation into bank officials' roles, disposal of cheated amounts, and the complainant being a senior citizen, raising concerns of threat upon release.