Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA BHAL KUSHWAHA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Bhal Kushwaha v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11272 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4045 (5 October 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. 11272 o 2005

Chandra Bhal Kushwaha ........Vs......... State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri P.K.Singh, Sri S.K.Singh and Sri Sehat Bahadur learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

This application is filed by Chandra Bhal Kushwaha with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 88 of 2005 under Sections  409/420/467/468/471/204/218/120-B I.P.C. P.S. Derapur district Kanpur Dehat.

From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case an F.I.R. was lodged by Phool Chand, Uppar Zila Sahkari Adhikari on 20.7.2004 at 5.P.M. in respect of  the misappropriationof money  done by the applicant and other co-accused persons at Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Baragaon,Bhikki..The allegation against the  applicant and two other accused persons are that they have misappropriated a sum  of Rs. 11,59,9731.55. The applicant was posted as  Accountant in the Society. The allegation against him is that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,46,857.05.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not misappropriated any amount of the Society. The allegation against the applicant is that he had issued receipts since 23.3.2000 to 30.3.2000 because he has taken charge of the then Secretary from  Co-accused Sampooranand because he was suspended and there is no allegation to commit forgery against the applicant. The inquiry was not properly done and the applicant was not given any opportunity to explain the circumstances. The inquiry was not proper and on the basis of that enquiry report the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the other co-accused because the applicant was a simple Accountant of the Society. Prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. the inquiry  was conducted  twice in which some  irregularity was found against the applicant.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant had issued receipts of the payment of money. Thus the amount was accepted by the applicant which was deposited by the members of the Society has not been deposited by the applicant in the account of the Society and a very  heavy amount was misappropriated by the applicant. The applicant and  other co-accused persons have misappropriated that amount by a pre-planned scheme.

It is further contended that the applicant has remained in Jail for a very short period.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and  without expressing any opinion on the merits  of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Accordingly this bail application is rejected

Dt.    5.10.2005  

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.