High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Manazir Husain v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9592 of 2005  RD-AH 2893 (15 September 2005)
Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 9592 of 2005
Munazir Hussasin...Vs......State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi and Sri D.V. Jaiswal learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Zafar Abbas learned counsel for the complainant.
This application is filed by the applicant Munazir Husain with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 779 of 2004, under Section 409 I.P.C., P.S. Paak Bara district Moradabad.
From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged on 3.11.2004 at 9.10 p.m. by Dharam Veer Singh Block Development Officer, Asmauli Block in pursuance of the order dated 3.11.2004 passed by Chief Development Officer, Moradabad alleging therein that for the village Booknala a sum of Rs. 2,95,540/- was given to the applicant and co-accused Ram Chandra, Gram Panchayat Adhikari for the development work under the scheme of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and some other works for the year 2002 to2004, but in an inquiry done by the Tahsildar, Sambhal it was found that no work was shown and in respect of work done by them no document was produced. The inquiry Officer came to conclusion that Rs. 2,95,540/- has been misappropriated by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is contended that the applicant was a village Pradhan and no proper inquiry was conducted and the Tahsildar who conducted the inquiry was not competent person to conduct the inquiry according to provision of the Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, the inquiry report shall not be sustained. It is further contended that any physical verification was not done without affording any
opportunity of being heard. The subsequent inquiry was done by the Executive Engineer, who also came to conclusion that embezzlement was done by the applicant and other co-accused persons, was not proper inquiry. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he was not in-charge of the alleged work done.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that during the investigation statement of the witnesses were recorded . According to their statements the applicant has misappropriated the amount, even he has not distributed the fund of scholarship to the eligible students and prepared forged papers showing the distribution of scholarship amount and proper inquiry has been done by the Executive Engineer in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate. It was found that there was a embezzlement of Rs. 6,12,842/-. It is further contended that the applicant is a criminal and 12 cases are pending against him.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant the applicant is not entitle for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.