Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rakesh Nijhawan v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6631 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10345 (25 May 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).



Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 6631 of 2006

Rakesh Nijhawan...Vs...State of U.P.


Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.          

          This application is filed by  applicant Rakesh Nijhawan with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 774 of 2005,  under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471  I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District  Shahjahanpur.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by one Kalyan Bhattacharya, the Manager, of the Bank of India, Shahjahanpur on 22.12.2005 at 3.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred within a period from 5.5.2005 to 21.10.2005. It is alleged that by playing a fraud a sum of Rs. 3,86,500/- has be withdrawn from the bank accounts since 5.5.2005 to 21.10.2005 and the relevant documents/papers have also been misplaced from the bank, it infers that some bank employees with the help of some outsiders have committed the alleged offence and one Tej Bahadur Khetri a peon of the bank and Ram Raheesh were named in the F.I.R. as suspected accused, but during investigation the name of the applicant came into light as a main accused and it has been revealed during the investigation that from the account of  Smt Pushpa Seth, Arvind and R.R. Seth a sum of Rs. 3,86,500/- have been withdrawn, The aforesaid amount was withdrawn on the different dates from the aforesaid accounts. During investigation it has come in the evidence that from the account of Smt Pushpa Seth on 29.7.2005 a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was withdrawn on the basis of forged cheque, its entry was made in the computer by the applicant and from the account of Sri Arvind a sum of Rs, 1,50,000/- , Rs. 43,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- have been withdrawn on 8.8.2005, 14.10.2005 and on 30.7.2005. respectively.  All the entries of withdraw amounts have been made by the applicant in the computer  and from the account of Sri R.R. Seth a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been withdrawn on 21.10.2005. Its entry has also been made by the applicant in the computer. The cheque book issued to Smt Pushpa Seth by the bank has not been used at all, even then on the basis of the forged cheque the amount was withdrawn.  The facility to withdraw the money through  the cheque was not available from the account of Sri Arvind, even then its facility was made fraudulently in the computer by the applicant. The applicant was serving as a computer clerk in the aforesaid bank

Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav and Sri Anil Raghav learned counsel for the applicant  and  learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P.

         It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that:-

(i)the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. whereas co-accused Tej Bahadur Khetri the Peon of the bank and Ram Rahish Waterman of the bank were named in the F.I.R. as suspected accused.

(ii)  no credible material have been collected by the I.O. during the investigation to show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Even there is no evidence that he has prepared any forged cheque etc. The applicant has been made accused on account of suspicion.

(iii) The statement of the first informant, the Manager  of the bank was recorded. He has specifically pointed out the involvement of two persons  as named  in the F.I.R.

(iv) The applicant was computer clerk. His job was not withdrawing the money. The job of the applicant was to check the account number and balance money. No other job was entrusted to the applicant. His function was of posting and checking in the computer. He was not in a position to issue any cheque book to withdraw the money. The cheque book is issued to the account holder on the basis of requisition slip and he has not handed over any cheque book to any person.

(v) Since every day a large number of the cheques were coming on  the counter of the applicant , it was very difficult for him to ascertain as to which account holder or his agent has come for encashment of the cheque.

(vi) The applicant is having excellent service career in the bank. He had joined in the service in the year 1986 and there was no complaint against the working of the applicant.

(vii) The applicant belongs to highly reputed family. He is having no criminal antecedents and there is no cogent and reasonable material collected by the I.O. during investigation. He has been implicated in the present case on account of doubt and suspicion, therefore, he may be released on bail.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the applicant is a main accused. He was In-charge of the computer and he has played fraud and withdrawn a huge amount of Rs. 3,86,500/- from 3 accounts  and he has made the entry in the computer even from the account of Arvind the money was withdrawn through the cheques whereas this facility was not available. The applicant has played fraud by making change in the computer. The offence is of a grave in nature. In such circumstances the applicant may not be released on bail.

           Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that the allegations made against the applicant are grave in nature. The amount has been withdrawn from the bank by playing a fraud. The applicant was having very responsible seat of working and it is not expected from any bank employee to commit such offence by playing a fraud. The public of the country have a trust on the bank. If the bank employees are involved in the commission of the such offences the trust and faith of the public will be lost from the bank and such financial institution. It is a offence against the society and financial system. It is not a individual offence. The act of the applicant is an attack on the root of the financial system, therefore, the gravity of the offence is too much. In such circumstances, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail. In case he is released on bail it will encourage the corrupt people to commit the such type of offences, therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, so, the prayer for bail is refused.              

           According this bail application is rejected.

Dated: 25 .5.2006




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


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 |

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