Allahabad High Court
Deoraj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2010
Author: Ram Autar Singh
Bench: Ram Autar Singh
Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13245 of 2010 Petitioner :- Deoraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Manu Saxena Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
A counter affidavit alongwith documents filed on behalf of the State of U.P. is taken on record.
This is second application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Deoraj Singh in Case Crime No. 509 of 2009, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that departmental enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 30.6.2006 in which several other officers/employees were found involved for certifying forged bills. The applicant retired as Executive Officer in June 2008, and other officers in order to save their skin with ulterior motive succeeded to register the F.I.R. dated 8.9.2009 with allegation that after verifying the official record from 2000 to 2005 several forged bills were found passed. It is further submitted that in enquiry report dated 30.6.2006 serious allegations were levelled against other officers also. On 26.2.2007 Kusum Lata, Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri further conducted the enquiry and without disclosing any substance of embezzlement and fixing liability upon the employee observed that the applicant and other officers committed forgery. In pursuance of the letter dated 7.9.2009 the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri lodged the F.I.R. against 10 named and unknown persons alleging therein that irregular payment of bills of certain contractors were passed during period from 2000 to 2005. The investigating officer also recorded statement of the informant Hemraj under section 161 Cr.P.C., but he did not collect credible evidence and on completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet against 7 accused persons including the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that there are two independent reports and both reports are full of contradictions and first report has not disclosed the name of the applicant and after his retirement the second report has been prepared with intention to involve him. The applicant was Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri and was posted there during brief period from 28.3.2003 to 17.9.2003 and again for a period from 20.10.2003 to 21.1.2004 and thus he worked there for a period of nine months only and after his retirement F.I.R. was lodged with malafide intention concealing real fact, while the applicant did not commit any embezzlement. It has been further contended on behalf of the applicant that the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar handed over additional charge of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri vide order dated 19.3.2003 and he handed over charge of the said post on 17.9.2003 to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri. One Purnima Singh took full charge as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri in the month of March, 2004 and Rohtash Sharma took charge from Purnima Singh as Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri in July, 2004 and continued to work as such till December, 2005. In October, 2005 one ward member of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri, namely, Ramesh Chandra Sharma made a complaint to Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar, who directed Sub Divisional Magistrate to conduct enquiry into the allegations and Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted report to the authorities and prepared chart in which the names of contractor, name of the Junior Engineer, who prepared the bills. One Rohtash Sharma, Executive Officer made payment of above bills and he was directly involved in the commission of crime. On behalf of the State of U.P., counter affidavit of investigating officer has been filed in order to show that the applicant Deoraj Singh worked as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri for period from 28.3.2003 to 21.2.2004 and he misappropriated government money amounting to Rs.11,30,615.49 during this period through forged bills for the work which was never performed. The photo copies of bills have been filed in order to show that the applicant Deoraj Singh as Executive Officer put his signatures on these bills for payment of above amount to the contractors. The signatures of the applicant Deoraj Singh have been found on the photo copies of the said bills and thus it has been prima facie proved that the applicant committed misappropriation of government money worth Rs.11,30,615.49 during his period as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri from 28.3.2003 to 21.2.2004 and thus he committed embezzlement of government money through forged bills. Thus, specific allegations against the applicant and specific amount allegedly embezzled by him have been found and he siphoned above amount on the basis of above forged bills without getting any work done. Consequently the offences are made out against the applicant as he committed financial irregularities and embezzlement of heavy amount during his period as Executive Officer. Investigating Officer during investigation collected credible evidence against him as indicated above. Under these circumstances no fresh ground is found to allow second application for bail and this application for bail is also to be dismissed.
Consequently, this second application for bail is also rejected. Order Date :- 9.7.2010 RU