Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJIT KUMAR VERMA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 14892 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12117 (25 July 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. 14892 of 2006

Ajit Kumar Verma Versus State of U.P.

**

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

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Ajit Kumar Verma arraigned in case Crime No. 181 of 2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 171-B, I.P.C., Police station Dhoomanganj, district Allahabad.

The informant Bhola Nath Kushwaha carries on ready made garments business in a shop situated at Transport Nagar, Allahabad. On 8.6.2006 the applicant along with two co-accused went to the informant's shop and introducing himself as C.B.I. officer took away a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the informant. The applicant along with co-accused came again on 9.6.2006 at informant's shop and made an illegal demand of Rs.10,000/-. The applicant and co-accused were arrested at the spot. The recovery of Rs.9.000/- is said to have been made from the possession of the applicant.

The learned counsel submitted that  ZED news service is a registered body under the  Press and Registration of Books Act and works under the supervision of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting , New Delhi. According to the learned counsel Mukhtiyar Husain is the editor of ZED news service. The learned counsel argued that Police Samachar Service is operated by ZED New Service and it is registered with Sub Registrar, New Delhi. The learned counsel contended that Police Samachar Service made an advertisement inviting application for detectives/reporters/member and the applicant made in application for appointment as reporter. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant was appointed as reporter of Police Samachar Service. The learned counsel argued that a complaint about marketing of substandard garments by the informant firm was received and the applicant went to the informant's shop to enquire. The learned counsel urged that the informant during the course of enquiry got annoyed and informed the police. The learned counsel pointed out that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn by applicant's nephew from the nearest  ATM of SBI to satisfy the illegal demand of police and fabricated recovery  has been shown. The learned counsel submitted that no first information report was lodged about the incident, which is said to have taken place on 8.6.2006.

The learned AGA submitted that recovery of Rs.9,000/- was made from the possession of the applicant. The learned counsel contended that the applicant introducing himself as CBI officer dishonestly and fraudulently took away a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the informant.

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

The applicant was appointed as correspondent of Police Samachar Service (news and detective agency) by Mukhtiyar Husain, the Chief Auditor/Manager. According to the applicant he visited informant's shop   to enquire about the complaint made by one Rakesh against his firm whereas according to the prosecution the applicant illegally siphoned swindle Rs.15,000/- representing himself as a CBI officer. Having taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and without expressing any opinion  about the merit of the case, I consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

Let the applicant Ajit Kumar Verma arraigned in case Crime No. 181 of 2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 171-B, I.P.C., Police station Dhoomanganj, district Allahabad, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

D/-25.7.2006

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.