Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17058 of 2021 Applicant :- H.M.10 Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shreesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankit Srivastava, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
Prosecution case as per first information report lodged on 7.8.2021 by Head Constable Ram Narain is that articles from the Malkhana have gone missing. The applicant has not given inventory of the said article while handing over the charge.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued while placing paras 8 and 9 of the affidavit that allegations of not handing over charge of the Malkhana is of the month of December, 2016 when the applicant was transferred from Bijnor to Bulandshahar and the present FIR has been lodged after 5 years of the said incident. It is further argued that as matter of fact, the applicant was transferred to Budaun in December, 2016 and posted at Alapur police station and the applicant has taken charge from one Munni Lal, Head Moharrir of the Malkhana, when the applicant was transferred then there was no Head Moharrir at police station Shyohara, Bijnor and then on the direction of the higher officers, charge has been given to Station House Officer and for the government property charge has been given to constable Sri Vinod Sharma and thereafter the applicant was relieved from the said police station.
It is argued that the present FIR relates to a very stain description for which applicant is not involved at all and same is after five years of the applicant being transferred from the concerned police station. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-13 of the affidavit. It is further argued that the articles have been destroyed after seeking permission of the concerned authorities and to the best of knowledge of the applicant, the said articles as alleged have been destroyed in the same process.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the allegation in the present matter are serious in nature. There is allegation of misappropriation of articles of Malkhana when the applicant was posted as the Incharge of the Malkhana.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations in the present case are of serious nature. The matter requires serious investigation, but the defence of the applicant regarding destruction of the articles is a matter to be looked into during investigation.
With the aforesaid observations, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 23.10.2021 S.K.S.
(Samit Gopal,J.)