The State of Maharashtra v. Rajkumar Kunda Swami
(2002) 104 (3) Bom LR 567
In the Bombay High Court
Crl. A 3522 /2001
Before Justice V Tahilramani
Decided on December 04, 2001

Relevancy of the case: Grant of bail in cases of computer data manipulation for embezzlement of public funds.

Statutes & Provisions Involved
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 65, 66,73)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 420, 409, 463, 464, 471, 477(A) )

Relevant Facts of the Case
•  Shri Yuvraj Patil lodged the complaint, who is the Assistant General Manager of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vashi Branch, Sector 17, Navi Mumbai. He complained on 28.7.2001 against the Respondent, a clerk in Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank, who looked after computer maintenance and repairs  since 1997.  The Bank has had computerised accounts and transactions since 1995.

• The respondent committed fraud to the extent of Rs. 81 lacs by opening fictitious accounts and manipulating the credit entries in the said accounts without depositing any amount, by tampering with the computer data. Ultimately, he withdrew amounts from the  accounts and  defrauded the Bank.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates
• The prosecutor submitted that the respondent embezzled the public fund to over Rs. 2 crores, and he couldn’t have done it without active assistance from other Bank staff. Therefore, further custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. Thus, the Investigating Officer should have been allowed to investigate the matter thoroughly in police custody.

• The prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate did not have the power to grant bail and  in view of the fact that property worth Rs. 26 lakhs were recovered from the accused; it can definitely be said that there is a reasonable ground for believing that he is guilty of the said offences under Section 409 of the I.P.C.
• The defence lawyer submitted that the orders of the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge are perfectly just and legal. Further, as the period of 15 days from the date of the first remand is over long back the accused cannot be remanded to P.C.R. in view of provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPc.

Opinion of the Bench
• The bench examined that the accused has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of public funds invested in the Bank by the public and the learned Magistrate was in serious error in not granting further police custody.
• The order passed by the learned Magistrate was absolutely perverse, apart from being illegal. The learned Magistrate should have realised that bail orders passed in such ugly haste are bound to hamper investigation thereby resulting into miscarriage of justice and the order is so arbitrary, capricious, illegal and perverse.

Final Decision
• The bench quashed and set aside the bail order, directing the accused to surrender before the trial court.

• The bench allowed the investigating agency to re-arrest the accused if he failed to surrender.

इस केस के सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.