Raghunath Singh vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—The applicant has made a request for bail in Crime No. 192 of 2000 under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar. At the time of hearing of first bail application, the applicant pressed for short term bail only on the ground that his wife is suffering from cancer. The applicant was ordered to be released on parole for two months. The bail was not considered on merits. The facts in brief are as follows.

The complainant of this case is U.P. State Hathkargha Nigam Ltd. Certain Saries were to be supplied by the District Magistrate, Purniya (Bihar) to the complainant. The applicant and the other coaccused of this case forged the authority letters and took saries worth Rs. 55 Lakhs and misappropriated them. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged.

I have heard Sri H.G.S.P. Parihar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri S.N. Singh and Sri Apul Misra, learned Counsel for the complainant and the A.G.A.

It is contended that the wife of the applicant was suffering from cancer. Therefore, he was ordered to be released on parole for two months by an order dated 17102000. However, in the meantime another case regarding same offence was registered in the State of Bihar in which the applicant was detained and was never released from jail. It is contended that the wife of the applicant died due to the cancer and could not get to treat as applicant remained in jail. That she has left two minor children and there is none to look after them.

Another contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there was conversation between the complainant and coaccused Atma Ram, which has been Tape recorded. This conversation has been mentioned in para 14 of the affidavit, which has not been denied. That according to this conversation, the entire articles are with Atma Ram as admitted by him. That no property came into possession of the applicant and he is in jail for the last about nine months. That there is no chance of this case being concluded at an early date.

As against this, the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that there was active participation of the applicant in the misappropriation. He went to Purniya and stayed there in a hotel. The records of the same has been obtained by the Investigating Officer. That the letter was forged by him.

Considering the entire circumstances and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail on his furnishing sureties for the heavy amount.

Let applicant Raghunath Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2000 under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties for heavy amount to the satisfaction of the C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar. Bail granted.