HEERA LAL SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Heera Lal Sharma v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16168 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17212 (5 October 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 (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Heera Lal Sharma involved in case Crime No. 174 of 2006, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police station Tundla, district Firozabad.

Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the decision in Manoranjan Das Versus State of Jharkhand 2004 (49) ACC 479 (Supreme Court) argued that mere introduction of  person opening bank account  is not  an offence. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant had not opened bank account nor caused wrongful loss to the bank. The learned counsel submitted that co-accused Mohan Kumar Wadhwani deposited two fake bank drafts in the said bank account and withdrew a sum of Rs.1,96,000/-.

The learned AGA argued that co-accused Mohan Kumar Wadhwani who had applied for opening of bank account  was introduced by the applicant.

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

Mere allegation against the applicant is of introducing co-accused Mohan Kumar Wadhwani by whom the bank account was opened. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the said co-accused. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Heera Lal Sharma involved in case Crime No. 174 of 2006, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police station Tundla, district Firozabad, be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

D/-5.10.2006

Mahmood-16168-06

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 |

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