Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVI DAYAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devi Dayal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20289 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12627 (1 August 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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

This is second bail application filed on behalf of accused applicant Devi Dayal for release on bail in case Crime No. 53 of 2004  under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 204 IPC, P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 4.5.2005.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Prosecution case in nut shell is that the applicant while posted as Secretary in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Gularia Kalan, P.S. Shishgarh, District Bareilly was transferred to Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Attapatti, Janubi, Bareilly. At the time of his transfer, 27 receipts were found blank and he had not handed over his charge of mini Bank. On an enquiry, it was found that there was embezzlement of Rs. 23,75,590/-. The first information report was lodged and charge sheet was also submitted thereafter.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant had handed over charge and charge list was also prepared. He has also contended that the original chik report and the case diary has not been submitted in the Court and the Magistrate could not take cognizance in the matter and on this ground also applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicant did not hand over the charge and absented himself and after breaking open the lock charge was given to his successor. Learned A.G.A. has also contended that the alleged charge list prepared by the applicant was found to be forged as it did not contain the signature of the recipient of the charge. He has also contended that the original case diary is available with the prosecution and that the original F.I.R. was sent to the Court concerned.

In any case on the ground of non availability or original report and on this ground applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

Applicant has committed embezzlement of huge amount and he did not hand over the charge and the alleged charge list as prepared by him was not found to be genuine.

In the circumstances, I do not find any new ground in the second bail application, which is devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.

However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. Learned Trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It shall be open to the applicant to move application for his bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and if any such application is moved learned Trial Court shall decide it according to law.

Copy of this order  be sent to learned Trial Court within a week.

Dated: 1.8.2006

RKS/20289/05


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.