Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA PAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Pal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16608 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8192 (24 April 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

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16608 of 2005

Chandrapal Versus State of U.P.

***

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Chandrapal arraigned in case Crime No. 105 of 2000 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police station Milak, district Rampur.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and have perused the record.

The prosecution case is that the applicant representing himself as Kishan Lal, proprietor of firm Kishan Lal Khad Bhandar Ganeshpur, Tahsil Meerganj, district Bareilly, purchased 150 gunny bags DAP valuing Rs.60,000/- and 105 gunny bags of Urea NDN valuing Rs.20,000/- from wholesale dealer Gangwar Krishi Udyog situate in Milak Nazirabad, district Rampur of which Pratap Singh is the proprietor. The applicant handed over bank draft no.  JK 126392 dated 9.9.1999 for Rs.80,000/- of Bank of Baroda Bhimgarh Branch, Bareilly to Pratap Singh in lieu of the price of DAP and manure purchased from the firm Gangwar Krishi Udyog. The said bank draft was presented by Pratap Singh at Bank of Baroda, Milak Branch, district Rampur and payment was made by transfer of amount of Rs.80,000/- in account No. 60 of Pratap Singh in the said bank. Later on the said bank draft was found to be forged.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that he is not the owner of Kishan Lal Khad Bhandar Ganeshpur, district Bareilly. The learned counsel submitted that the bank draft in question not being in the name of the applicant he was not going to derive any benefit out of it. The learned counsel urged that the first information report was lodged after a long lapse of time.

The learned AGA submitted that the applicant is involved in committing forgery in the Bank Draft and has defrauded and caused financial loss of Rs.72000/-.

I have taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of both the sides.

The appellant representing himself as Kishanlal handed over the forged Bank Draft of Rs.80,000/- to Pratap Singh, proprietor of Gangwar Krishi Udyog, Bareilly in lieu of the price of fertilizers purchased from the said wholesale  firm. The forgery in the Bank Draft is of Rs.80,000/- is  said to have been committed by interpolation of  figure of ''0' and word ''Y'. The said valuable instrument was presented in the Bank by Pratap Singh, the proprietor of Gangwar Krishi Udyog. The applicant has caused loss of Rs.72000/- to the Bank. The applicant being involved in committing forgery in the Bank Draft and having used the said forged valuable instrument for the purpose of cheating, I do not consider it to be a fit case for bail.

The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Chandrapal is hereby rejected.

D/-24.4.2006

Mahmood


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.