Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAKEEL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shakeel v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20869 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 3629 (27 September 2005)

 

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. 20869 of  2004

Shakeel Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri Hafeez Khan learned counsel for the applicant  and the learned A.G.A.

This application is filed by the applicant Shakeel with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 108/04 under section 465/467/468/471/420/408/120-B I.P.C. P.S. Anwarganj district Kanpur Nagar.

From the perusal of the record it reveals that  in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Shakeela Khatoon on 18.9.2004 at 3.15 P.M.

According to prosecution version, the husband of the first informant died on 6.9.2002.She opened an account in  Bank of Baroda Branch Chamra Mandi, Kanpur vide Account No. 10800. In that account she deposited money on different dates. The Bank has issued  cheque book having cheque no. 326171 to 326190. She had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.2004 through cheque no. 326172; she has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9.5.2004 through cheque no. 326173 and she has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.5.2004 through cheque no. 326174. It is alleged that in the month of August, 2004 she came to Kanpur and went to the Bank for getting the  entries  made in her pass book. The entries were made in her pass-book by the Bank authorities. When she checked the pass book she shocked by seeing that a heavy amount was withdrawn from her account on the basis of forged cheques on different dates as described in the F.I.R. and she came to know that on 4.8.2004 that some person become the joint account holder without her consent and second cheque book was issued to him by the Bank. That person was the present applicant. The second cheque book was issued to him and on the basis of those cheque the applicant has withdrawn a heavy amount i.e. Rs. 8.40 lacs from the account of the first informant with the connivance of the bank official. The record shows  that the applicant has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 4.8.2004, Rs. 14,000/- on 4.8.2004, Rs. 20,000/- on 6.8.2004, Rs. 80,000/- on 7.8.2004 and Rs. 5,000/- on 9.8.2004.

It is alleged that some other amount was also withdrawn by the applicant from the account of the first informant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant  that the bank authorities have play fraud and on the basis of forged documents  heavy amount was withdrawn from the account of the first informant. It is further contended that the applicant has not given any application  for becoming the joint account holder of  the account which was opened by the first informant, and he has not issued any cheque which has been cashed by the Bank and it is the bank authorities who are responsible for committing the alleged offence. During the investigation the Bank authorities namely Vinay Shanker Verma and Mahesh Chandra Sharma become the accused and it has come in evidence that  they have committed alleged offence but they have been released on bail by this court on 14.6.2005 and  16.6.2005. It is further contended that without the connivance of the official of the bank concerned such forgery cannot be committed and such amount cannot be withdrawn.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he moved an application before the bank authorities to become the joint account holder of the account of the first informant, which was under operation since 6.9.2002 and the applicant become the joint account holder on the basis of forged papers filed by him showing the consent of the first informant  and the applicant has received the second cheque book and  the applicant has issued cheque from that cheque book and   has withdrawn the amount from the account of the first informant. The applicant has committed the alleged offence with the connivance of the bank authorities but the applicant is the main  accused and his case is distinguishable with the case of the official of the bank concerned who have been released on bail. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.  Accordingly his bail application is rejected

Dt. 27.9.2005

N.A.


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.