Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39843 of 2019 Applicant :- Hariram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Udai Prakash Deo Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.123 of 2010 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 120B, 204 IPC and section 13 (1) (2) of Prevention of Anti-Corruption Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of investigation.
It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been got lodged by Sri B.D. Gupta, Tehsildar against the accused applicant, who is at present 70 years of age. Accused is physically infirm as he was having low vision and hence his work was being looked after by Laksman Prasad, Lekhpal, co-accused. The accused applicant was Registrar Kanoongo at the relevant time. The date when the complainant joined the office, prior to that period under the orders of SDM, the work of distribution of drought relief fund was being looked after by co-accused Lakshman Prasad, who had after having received cheques of drought relief fund, used to deposit in Allahabad Bank, Branch Kharuaon, and from there, he used to transfer the amount to other accounts as per need. The description/ detail which was prepared village-wise by Lekhpal/Revenue Inspector shows that by cheque no. 031973, an amount of Rs.1,96,27,000/- was deposited by Lakshman Prasad, co-accused on 10.01.2009 in Account No.30470 of Tehsildar Ghoraval. The cheque no.34378 of drought relief fund was deposited in Account No.30168 pertaining to natural calamities instead of depositing in drought relief account. Further, it is alleged in the said FIR that from out of the account no.30168 pertaining to natural calamities, cheques nos. 137051 to 137100 were issued by using forged signature of the complainant and huge amount was taken out. Further, it is alleged that co-accused Lakshman Prasad had got the concerned document misplaced and in a preliminary enquiry, it came to light that total amount withdrawn was Rs.40,50,000/-. A beneficiary of drought relief fund could maximum be given Rs.8,000/ though beneficiary of natural calamities was entitled to be given maximum Rs.One lac. Lakshman Prasad, co- accused and Chandrakant Dubey were also Govt. Servants, who could not have made cash payment under neither from drought relief fund nor natural calamities fund. From the details given by Allahabad Bank, Branch Kharuaon, payment has been made to one person namely Lakshman Prasad, despite such huge amount being withdrawn, the said accused did not consult the complainant nor did he compare his signature, therefore, the total amount Rs.40,50,000/- has been embezzled by co-accused Lakshman Prasad and co-accused Chandrakant Dubey has embezzled Rs.20,852/-.
In the light of the FIR, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that no role has been assigned to the accused- applicant in the said FIR except that he was stated to be physically infirm having low vision because of which his work was being looked after by co-accused Lakshman Prasad whose arrest has been stayed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition NO.7560 of 2010, copy of which is at page-74 of the paper book and the arrest of other co-accused Manoj Kumar, who was Bank Manager at the relevant time, has also been stayed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.6370 of 2010, copy of which is at page-72 of the paper book . Further, it is argued that after a long period of ten years, in Parcha no. 8 of the case diary the Investigating Officer has brought forward the name of the accused-applicant. He has been falsely implicated as there is no allegation against him in FIR. There is no signature of the applicant on any of the cheques nor has he embezzled any amount, hence anticipatory bail should be granted.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.
Looking to the fact that co-accused have already been granted stay against their arrest till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and the case of the present applicant is at par with the case of the co-accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Hariram Singh involved in Case Crime No. 123 of 2010 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 120B, 204 IPC and section 13 (1) (2) of Prevention of Anti-Corruption Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 AU