Allowed

Kailash Thakur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018BAIL/14405/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court granted bail to an applicant (Kailash Thakur) charged in a financial fraud case. The court noted the FIR was based on an ex parte enquiry, implicated only junior staff while excluding senior officers, and observed no prior criminal record for the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC with a personal bond and two sureties on standard conditions against tampering with evidence and committing fur

Kailash Thakur Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14405 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Kailash Thakur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur,Amit Rai,Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghubans Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikas Rastogi learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The argument is that the applicant was employed on the post of clerk at the relevant time. The first information report has been lodged by the Deputy C.M.O., Sri P.R. Nayar. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the name of the applicant finds place but no role has been assigned to him in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the statement of the First Information Report recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the statement the procedure of payment has been described by the informant as follows:-

¶7

gekjs ;gka dSls Hkqxrku gksrk gS mldh izfØ;k eSa vkidks crkrk gw¡A fdlh Hkh dEiuh ds nokbZ;ksa ds vkns'k nsus ds fy, vkWuykbu vkMZj fn;s tkrs gSA phQ vkWfQl LVksj bapktZ ,oa lh0,e0vks0 ds la;qDr gLrk{kj }kjk fd;s tkrs gSA mlds ckn esfMflu vkrh gS esfMflu vkus ds ckn phQ QkekZflLV }kjk mudks fxudj vius LVkd cqd jftLVj esa ntZ fd;k tkrk gS ml LVkd cqd esa LVksj bapktZ }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s tkrs gS mlds ckn fcy ij phQ QkekZflLV] LVksj bapktZ rFkk lh0,e0vks0 }kjk la;qDr gLrk{kj fcy ,dkmUV foHkkx esa vk tkrk gS fQj mlds ckn fcy ds ih0,Q0,e0,l0 dEI;wVj }kjk fudkyh tkrh gS ml ih0,Q0,e0,l0 ij lh0,e0vks0 vkSj ,0lh0,e0 vks0 ds gLrk{kj gksus ds ckn psd fuxZr jftLVj es a izfof"V dh tkrh gSA psd fuxZr jftLVj esa Hkh nksuks ds gLrk{kj gksrs gS mlds ckn ih0,Q0,e0,l0 cSad esa Hkqxrku ds fy, pyh tkrh gS gekjs lkjs Hkqxrku blh izfØ;k ds rgr gksrs gSa lkFk gh vkidks ;g voxr djkuk gS tks Hkqxrku esjs QthZ gLrk{kj }kjk fd;s x;s gSa muesa ;g izfØ;k ugh viukbZ x;h gS blh rjg vkSj Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa vkidks voxr djkuk gS fd MkbZV fizfVax ,oa xkfM+;ksa ds Hkqxrku ls igys Vs.Mj izfØ;k gksrh gS Vs.Mj ds fy, igys Mh0,e0 egksn; }kjk vuqeksnu ds mijkUr de ls de nks v[kckj esa fufonk nh tkrh gSA fufonk Mh0,e0 egksn; }kjk ukfer vf/kdkjh dh ekStwnxh esa ukfer lnL;ksa dh ekStwnxh esa [kksyh tkrh gS ftldh nj lcls de gksrh gS mlh dks Vs.Mj gks tkrk gS ijUrq tks Hkqxrku esjs QthZ gLrk{kj }kjk fd;s x;s gS muesa ;g izfØ;k ugh viukbZ x;h gSA

¶8

It has further been argued that the transaction of the money is not in cash but it was transferred from one account to the other. Learned counsel for the applicant has further referred to the circular issued by the

¶9

Finance Controller of the National Health Mission, U.P. wherein specific direction has been issued regarding the managing the secrecy of the user I.d. and password of PFMS portal user which is quoted below:-

¶10

di;k voxr gksuk pkgs fd ih0,Q0,e0,l0 osc iksVZy esa esdj dh vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ CykWd ys[kk izca/kd ,oa ftyk ys[kk izca/kd }kjk iz;ksx fd;k tkrk gS rFkk psdj dh ;wtj vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ dk iz;ksx v/kh{kd~@izHkkjh fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ,oa mij eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA esdj@psdj dk ;wtj vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ O;fDrd gksrk gS blfy, nwljs O;fDr dks u fn;k tk ldrk u gh nwljs O;fDr }kjk iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,u0,p0,e0 ds vUrxZr ds ,d lqn<+ foRrh; O;oLFkk LFkkfir djus gsrw ;g vko';d gS fd leLr Hkqxrkuksa gsrq vkiwfrZdrkZvksa@ykHkkfFkZ;ksa ds lR;fir fcy ckmpj ,oa vU; fooj.k v/kh{kd@izHkkjh fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls i=koyh ij vuqeksnu izkIr djus ds mijkUr esdj }kjk ih0,Q0,e0,l0 ls bZ&isesUV fizaV ,Mokbl rS;kj djrs le; lR;fir fcy ckmpj ,oa uksV'kkhV dks ih0,Q0,e0,l0 iksVZy ij viyksM fd;k tk;saA rFkk psdj }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr dj fy;k tk;s fd esdj }kjk leLr fcy ckmpj ,oa uksV'khV ih0,Q0,e0,l0 iksVZy ij viyksM fd;k tk,A

¶11

vr% vkidks funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mi;qZDr O;oLFkk dk dM+kbZ ls ikyu fd;k tk, ,oa ,Mfeu vkbZ0Mh0 ds ikloMZ vkids }kjk lqjf{kr j[kh tk, rFkk fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ fdlh vU; O;fDr dks u fn;k tk,A lkFk gh ;g Hkh lqfuf'r djs fd ftl vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dks ih0,Q0,e0,l0 iksVZy ds lapkyu gsrq ;wtj vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS mls xqIr j[ksa rFkk fdlh Hkh n'kk esa tc rd fu;ekuqlkj funsZ'k fuxZr u gks rc rd lacaf/kr ;wtj vkbZ0Mh0 ,oa ikloMZ fdlh vU; O;fDr dks gLrkarfjr u fd;k tk, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj CykWd Lrj ij fu;qDr CykWd ys[kk izca/kd ls ys[kk laca/kh dk;Z djk;k tk;s rFkk lR;fir fcy ckmpj ,oa uksV'khV dks ih0,Q0,e0,l0 iksVZy ij viyksM djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA rkfd Hkfo"; esa fdlh izdkj ds foRrh; vfu;ferrk dh fLFkfr mRiUu u gks ik;sA ftldk mRrjnkf;Ro O;fDrxr :i ls vkidk gksxkA

¶12

d`i;k bls mPp izkFkfedrk iz/kku djsaA

¶13

It has been further argued that in case the user Id. and password were misused the liability of the person responsible for maintaining the secrecy should have been fixed. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer learned A.G.A. has argued that the large amount of public money has been misappropriated in this case and the applicant being the clerk was responsible for proper management of the public fund and had protection from misuse. It has been argued that the applicant has submitted serious offence and is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

A perusal of the First Information Report shows that it is based on exparte enquiry wherein none of the accused has not been heard before his implication. None of the senior Officer responsible for the operation of the account have been implicated nor any role of any officer have been

¶15

mentioned in the F.I.R. All the staff around the level of clerk, operator, etc., have been implicated and finally charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant and the Account Manager. This prima facie shows that the First Information Report and the investigation by the Police is not in accordance with law. At this stage, the court restrained itself from making further observation on the basis of the material on record since the trial is yet to be done against the applicant. It has been informed at the bar that charges have already been framed by the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2016. There is no prior criminal history to his credit.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence which may be awarded to the applicant, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Pankaj Kumar Singh , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1074 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Bijnor on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶18

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.07.2018

¶23

Rohit

Kailash Thakur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Thakur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Jahid Alam Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar @ Abhay Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Naveel Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Others