Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.G. SINGHAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.G. Singhal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 899 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2359 (31 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri R. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Accused K. G. Singhal son of R. K. Vaishya has prayed for release on bail in Case Crime No. 617 of 2004 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

Prosecution case is that when the accused was posted as Manager in Urban Cooperative Bank he conspired with other co accused and cheques for amount of Rs. 16296713/- were purchased fraudulently and forged entries were made in the Bank account. Cheques were presented by different parties and were cleared by co accused Mulchandra Sharma who was clearing officer and when he proceeded on leave his successor Harkesh Kumar Sharma cleared the cheque but these cheques were not sent for adjustment and when the secretary co accused R.D.Sharma  and the accused applicant were changed those cheques were sent but were returned with endorsement that there was no amount in the account of those parties.

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the relevant time applicant was posted at Head quarter of Urban Cooperative Bank, Ghaziabad whereas the amount was allegedly withdrawn from the main branch of Urban Cooperative Bank at Ghaziabad and he did not sign any cheque and the main role is of the secretary of the Urban Cooperative Bank i.e. co accused R.D.Sharma and the person who cleared the cheques i.e. Mool Chandra Sharma and his successor.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that co accused R.D. Sharma has already been directed to be released on bail by another bench of this Court by order dated 11.11.2005. He has further contended that the only allegation of conspiracy is there against the applicant and he is in jail since 3.2.2005. He has further contended that his case stands on better footing than R.D. Sharma as R.D.Sharma was the secretary of the society at the relevant time and was wholly responsible for the functioning of the bank.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, accused is entitled to bail.

Let the accused named above be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The applicant shall also furnish undertaking to the effect that:

1. shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments;

2. shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission;

3. shall not dispose of his immovable property during the pendency of the trial;

The trial Court shall verify the status of the sureties before releasing the applicant on bail.

Dated: 31.1.2006

RKS/899/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.