Allahabad High Court
Ved Vyas Pandey Son Of Ram Naresh Pandey ... vs State Of U.P. on 29 September, 2005
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Ved Vyas Pandey with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 64 of 2003 under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. P.S. Gauri Bazar district Deoria.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Ajeet Kumar singh, Uppar Zila Sahkari Adhikari on 28.2.2003 against the applicant.
4. According to prosecution version the applicant was the Incharge- Secretary Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Sauna Laxman. The allegation against him is that the applicant has misused his office and embezzled an amount of Rs. 6,27,025.71 on different dates. The allegation against him is that he has realised the money from the depositors but the same has not been deposited in the account of the of the Society. Some other allegations are also against him.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against the applicant are false and frivolous and the F.I.R. was lodged after great thought and consultation and he has deposited the amount in the account of the society, which he has realised.
6. It is further contended that he joined the department in the year 1979 as a Salesmen. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1996. Thereafter he took charge of in charge Secretary of the Society. Prior taking over the charge there was one incharge secretary Toofani Prasad Sharma. The charge of the Secretary was given to the applicant. Thereafter he checked the cash book and other accounts of the Society and found irregularities. One Deena Nath Gupta was working as a Salesmen/Associate Clerk. An amount of Rs. 5,41,451/- was due on him. He found that the cheques 55 in number of the society were filled up by Deena Nath Gupta. In respect of irregularities committed by Deena Nath Gupta applicant gave information to the higher authorities that is why the authorities of the department become annoyed with the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant had deposited a sum of Rs. 78,862 /- He could not deposit the amount of Rs. 13138/- because he was not having the said amount. It is further contended that he has not embezzled amount of the Society.
7. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant and another co-accused persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs. 6,27,025.71 and there is documentary evidence against him. Therefore he does not deserve for any leniency. He is in jail for a very short period.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly this bail application is rejected