AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that Ved Prakash, Block Development Officer, Pauri lodged a report in the police station against the present applicant and the co-accused Virendra Singh Bisht on 10.3.2010 alleging that the applicant in collusion with co-accused misappropriated the government funds.
Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State while opposing the bail of the applicant strongly argued that the applicant, being posted as Accounts Clerk, in collusion with co-accused, misappropriated the government funds to the tune of Rs. 12,44,721/ - by preparing different cheques on different dates. He further submitted that the bail of the co-accused Virendra Singh Bisht has already been rejected by this Court on 3.6.2010. Details of money misappropriated by the applicant in connivance with the co-accused is reproduced as under:
S. No. Details Amount 1. Receipt No. 288257 dated 7.7.2009 7,500.00 2. Receipt No. 288258 dated 20.8.2009 30,000.00 3. Receipt No. 368083 dated 14.9.09 15,697.00 4. Cheque No. 424529 dated 20.4.2009 25,000.00 5. Cheque No. 191632 dated 26.8.2009 35,000.00 6. Cheque No. 191630 dated 26.8.09 10,000.00 7. Cheque No. 309826 dated 26.8.09 2,10,000.00 8. Cheque No. 180889 dated 26.8.09 5,000.00 9. Cheque No. 450331 dated 11.8.09 15,300.00 10. Cheque No. 191440 dated 26.8.09 2,10,000.00 11. - 1,62,100.00 12. - 95,000.00 13. Cheque No. 821902 dated 26.8.09 2,05,000.00 14. Cheque No. 450332 dated 21.8.09 15,337.00 15. Cheque No. 450333 dated 27.8.09 5,000.00 16. Cheque No. 450328 dated 15.6.09 1,01,897.00 17. Cheque No. 424573 dated 1.5.09 1,01,895.00 Total 12,44,721.00
Along with the counter affidavit, statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Ved Prakash (recorded two times) and that of Digambar Singh and Shyam Lal have also been annexed, who have also supported the prosecution case in toto.
It was next argued by the counsel for the applicant that the disciplinary proceeding is also continuing against the applicant on the same charges. This argument itself is not at all of any help for the applicant inasmuch from this fact itself, it is now proved that the evidence is there against the applicant and the Department has also found evidence against him and started proceeding against him, which also strengthens the prosecution story.
On a careful perusal of the contents of FIR; details of amount misappropriated by the applicant in connivance with the co-accused as quoted above as well as perusing the statements of Ved Prakash, Digambar Singh and Shyam Lal, as annexed with the counter affidavit, prima facie it reveals that the applicant in connivance with the co-accused, while posted and functioning as Accounts Clerk, misappropriated the government funds to the tune of Rs. 12,44,721/ -. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and seriousness of the case, the Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out.
Bail application is rejected accordingly. Rejected.