Mohd. Rafioddin Rehan Siddiqui v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2012APPLN/578/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected multiple anticipatory bail applications filed by bank employees accused of misappropriation, breach of trust, and financial fraud. The High Court held that the gravity of the offences against small depositors did not warrant bail.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail rejected in view of the gravity of charges and prima facie evidence of strong case against applicants.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

1 CriApln 578/12,5379,5693/11,32,725/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2012

¶5

Mohd. Rafioddin Rehan Siddiqui,
age 41 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Karanja Road, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed

¶6

Applicant

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra,

¶9

Respondents

¶10

2 The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist. Beed

¶11

Shri T.W.Pathan, advocate for the applicant
Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondents

¶12

WITH

Mohd. Rafioddin Rehan Siddiqui Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2012)

¶51

(a)The applicant is working as Chief Officer of the
Bank. Various wrongs noted in the audit report, which
involve element of criminal liability, are attributed
against various officers, employees, directors and other
persons.

¶57

(c)The information collected by the investigating
officer reveals direct acts of misappropriation by way of
over drawing as well as indirect acts of attracting
liability towards criminal breach of trust.

¶60

have been passed in absence of actual and own credit
balance. These acts were possible due to applicant’s
influence due to position and collusion with the
employees, who are amongst other accused persons, and had
passed those vouchers for payment and had paid the money
to this accused.

¶61

(e)It is prima facie seen, that the applicant has
indulged in various criminal acts by use of his knowledge
which he has acquired about the banking business,
collusion with some amongst the Directors and lack of
adequate knowledge on the part of remaining members of

¶68

(b) Accusation against the applicant is that he has
withdrawn from said account various amounts though he had
not deposited money apart from salary credited in said
account. All these withdrawals which were in excess of
salary were based on credit which was either unauthorized
or was by way of over drawing. This type of overdrawing
and re-deposit etc. continued for long duration.

¶75

(g) Case diary reveals that withdrawals purportedly
signed by him on the front as well as reverse (on the
back side) of money withdrawal slip are on record.
Various amounts are seen withdrawn are from same account
in which salary was deposited and withdrawn by him.

¶76

(h) The contention of the applicant that his
account/ledger was hidden by the Manager and he did not
have any knowledge about the entries therein is in the
nature of defence, and it cannot be accepted at this
stage.

¶77

(i)In this background, prima facie there is a strong
case against the applicant for having withdrawn the
amount without authority and, hence committing the
offence of misappropriation. It is also seen that he has
permitted payment and used password without authority
and, hence has prima facie committed the offence of
breach of trust.

¶83

(ii)Suppression of entries caused in the account
titled as ‘Savings Difference Account’, ‘Time
Deposit Difference Account’, and ‘Dam-Duppad
Difference Account’ which accounts had got inflated
due to wrong and unauthorized withdrawals which
could not be accounted/settled.

¶90

case of commission of offences by the applicant.
Withdrawals of amount without credit balance amounts to
misappropriation. Permitting payment without authority
and use of password without authority turns out to be
breach of trust.

¶100

(c) Though it is seen in the F.I.R. That there is
reference to unsigned voucher towards withdrawal of Rs.
2,04,567/-. Evidence collected by I.O. shows that there
are original vouchers (withdrawal slips) in which same
amount and same date is written and those bear signature
of applicant on the front as well as on its back side.
It is likely that these signed slips may have been
tendered lateron to rectify the audit objection.

¶104

(f) In this background, prima facie there is a strong
case against the applicant for withdrawing the amount
without authority and, hence misappropriation as well as
permitting payment without authority and, hence breach of
trust.

¶113

(c) In this background, there is prima facie strong case
against the applicant of overdrawing / withdrawing the
amount without authority from own account and, hence
misappropriation. He has permitted payment without
authority and, hence committed breach of trust.

¶115

irregularities were found in the process of audit. Indepth
scrutiny of these irregularities revealed various acts of
misappropriation by different persons who are staff members,
and similar acts by all accused generally..

¶116

12.It prima facie reveals that Chief Executive Officer
has engaged himself in withdrawing various amounts by creating
fictitious credit by use of the computerized data, creating
corresponding debit in the unsettled or suspense accounts
titled differently.

¶122

14.All accused taken together as if privileged, have
ultimately cheated the small depositors in the bank by
usurping the deposit by these small depositors. On what prima
facie appears, all of them have acted in gross betrayal of
faith of depositors.

¶124

grave and heinous from the graver are seen growing in the zone
occupied by men with white collar. Small investors have
deposited the money earned by them with hard toil, in bank
with an ardent faith and trust. Those who are equipped with
knowledge like the applicants, and are usually dealing in
money belonging to such small men, are seen using such money
in total betrayal of the faith and trust reposed in them.

¶126

small amount in comparison with those who earn in trillions
and lose in millions. Present is a case of loss to a small
man whose paltry sum is defrauded. When a small man looses all
his savings of hard boiled days and years, it does

¶130

18.The categorization of offence for those who have
gained expertise and use it for betrayal of trust has to be
ranked worst in their degree. This aspect renders the act of
accused persons of no lesser gravity than the offence against
body and life of the person. One amongst inevitable sides of
life is joy, and pecuniary resource is an important device of
joy. The pains and agony when hard boiled money is defrauded
should be seen as a yardstick or telescope of viewing the
gravity of economic offences. Therefore, the offence needs to
be viewed as graver when such economic offender defrauds a
small man.

¶132

as indicated. The concession of pre-arrest bail which is a
device to safeguard liberty from onslaught of an unjust arrest
and likely ordeal of custodial experience ought not be
available for accused who belong to category of persons of

Mohd. Rafioddin Rehan Siddiqui v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Namdeo Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Arjun Savant(Koli) Vs the State of Mah

Balasaheb Babanrao Bhingardive Vs the State of Mah

Mallinath Dattatraya Bhange Vs the State of Mah

Mohd. Rafioddin Rehan Siddiqui v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Namdeo Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Arjun Savant(Koli) Vs the State of Mah

Balasaheb Babanrao Bhingardive Vs the State of Mah

Mallinath Dattatraya Bhange Vs the State of Mah

A compact analysis

Coram

Anil Prakash Kardile Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aba@Dagadu Narayan Salunke Vs the State of Mah