Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37080 of 2021 Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Alka Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Suraj Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramji Singh Patel,Swetashwa Agarwal
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Section 417, 420, 406, 467, 504, 506, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi.
Tersely put, the prosecution case is that on 01.03.2021, an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant stating therein that he is the Principal of Vikas Intermediate College, Parmanandpur, Shivpur, where the trustees of Lord Buddha Educational and Welfare Trust came for advertisement and gave information about the aforesaid trust. In the meeting held in the premises of the aforesaid school, the trustees floated a proposal for establishing 1250 solar submersible pumps, under Swacch Bharat Mission, in which the informant and three other persons gave a total sum of Rs. 60,000,00/- as security to accused persons but the accused persons did not provide any equipment for the said work and when the money was demanded, the informant was threatened by accused persons to face dire consequences.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submitted that Lord Buddha Trust and informant itself transferred the money in bank account of Ajeet Kumar Prasad or other bank accounts and the aforesaid trust itself gave total sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- through different modes like, NEFT/RTGS and cash. The informant after obtaining cheques, fraudulently produced them before police to give colour to the case. The aforesaid trust itself is victim as the Ajeet Kumar Prasad misappropriated the whole amount given by the trust for obtaining the project. Allegation that informant and three other persons gave Rs. 60,000,00/- in cash to the trust, is false. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant is explained in para no. 27 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. After conclusion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet. Applicant is lying in jail since 24.06.2021. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that applicant and other co-accused persons embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,13,48,000/-. The informant brought on record the details of bank entries, made in the account of aforesaid trust and it its alleged trustees and office bearers and also other firms companies where money was got transferred by the aforesaid trust. Applicant being the secretary of the aforesaid trust and is incharge of day to day affairs of the trust. Applicant gave cheques under his own signatures as security, therefore, bail application of the accused applicant should be rejected.
Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant was the secretary of the aforesaid trust and incharge of day to day affairs of the trust and he gave cheques under his own signatures as security, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, bail application of the applicant, is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Furthermore, it is clarified that the observations, if any, made herein above shall be strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021/VPS