$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4759/2024 KIRAN KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kaliyar, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Ms. Karishma Malani, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 21.02.2025 1. This is a petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.: RC0032023A0019dated 19.05.2023 under Sections 120B read with Section 409, 420 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000. 2. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are Ms Kiran Kumari while posted as Officer (Scale I) in Jafarpur Kalan, unauthorizedly and illegally closed 158FDRs/ Term Deposits amounting to Rs. 11,97,15,165/- without any mandate andvouchers and fraudulently transferred the said closure proceeds to savings accounts maintained in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:25:40 name of her mother Mrs. Bala Devi, her brother Sh. Shiv Raman, Mrs. Sunil W/o Sh. Ram Niwas and Sh. Dharampal. It has been further alleged that Ms. Kiran Kumari debited nine savings accounts for Rs. 2,46,60,000/-through cash withdrawals and fraudulently transferred the said amount to third party accounts. The said amount was further remitted to M/s Angel Broking. Additionally, she fraudulently debited five KCC accounts for cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 3,90,000/-. It has also been alleged that she sanctioned and disbursed a Mudra loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the name of a non-existent customer andfraudulently debited the said account for Rs. 4,49,000/-. In this manner. Ms. Kiran Kumari, with the help of unknown others, misappropriated and siphoned off atotal amount of Rs. 14,46,14,165/-, thus defrauding the bank for personal gain. 3. Mr. Kaliyar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case, the petitioner is a lady and has been in custody since 24.05.2023. 4. He further states that the incomplete chargesheet had been filed and only subsequently, the chargesheet was filed for offence of siphoning of an amount of Rs. 11 crores. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was an Assistant Branch Manager of Jaffarpur Kalan Branch of Union Bank of India. During this period, the petitioner siphoned off the public money amounting to Rs. 14 crores. As of today, the bank officials are being examined and it is possible that the petitioner being an Assistant Branch Manager at one point of time may be in a position to influence her colleagues/witnesses who are yet to be examined. Some of the colleagues who are yet to be examined This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:25:40 could be her juniors at the relevant time. 7. The fact of incomplete chargesheet has already been already been dealt in the earlier rejection of application seeking regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Courtvide order dated 16.04.2024 in BAIL.APPLN. 3167 in detail. Relevant para is extracted below:- “6. The benefit of proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. would be available to accused only if the investigation is not completed andchargesheet is not filed within the stipulated period. Admittedly, the chargesheet has been filed within stipulated period. The submission by learned SPP for CBI that since the petitioner is involved in about 158fraudulent transactions committed over a period of two years and each transaction constitutes a separate offence, has to be kept in perspective. Theremay be unity of fraudulent purpose in respect of series of transactions or several different transactions but that by itself would not amount to single transaction as contended by learned counsel for petitioner. Each transaction of misappropriation/embezzlement of funds of respective account holder, is acomplete act in itself. The modus operandi adopted by accused for eachembezzlement may be same but it cannot be ignored that in respect of eachfraudulent transaction, a complete process was again instituted and as suchthe entire series of fraudulent transactions cannot be considered as one.Further, since not more than three fraudulent transactions / offences can This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:25:40 beclubbed, the chargesheet presented by CBI pending investigation of othertransactions cannot be said to be incomplete. The case of the petitioner also does not appear to be on parity with co-accused Raj Kumar since it has been pointed out by learned SPP for CBI that siphoned amount was not found to have been diverted by him in accountsof his relatives/ friends, though the same is disputed by learned counsel for thepetitioner.” 8. For the said reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage, hence, the same is dismissed. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court once the bank officials have been examined. JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 21, 2025/sp Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:25:40