Dismissed

Animesh Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Ghaziabad

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2018BAIL/15608/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Hon'ble Court rejected the plea for bail. The applicant, accused of corruption involving unauthorized bitumen removal and data deletion using digital signatures, was held ineligible for bail despite being newly appointed and lacking a criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial Court to conclude trial within six months.

Animesh Verma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Ghaziabad — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15608 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Animesh Verma Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation, A.C.B. Ghaziabad Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, holding brief of Sri Gyan Prakash, for CBI and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant for release on bail in RC No.120 2014A 0004, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 201 and 477 A IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 along with substantive offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 409, 420, 201 and 477 A IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, police station C.B.I., A.C.B. Ghaziabad, district Ghaziabad.

¶7

The allegation against the applicant is that he was posted as an Operation Officer and was Incharge of Supply and Distribution Department (S&D) of Bitumen Drum Filling Plant (BDFP), Mathura and was required to check the Indent/Bilty/Yellow card and thereafter to forward the papers to the Accounts Officer-II for creation of FAN slip (Filling Advance Note). After signing the FAN slip and the Plastic card, the same is handed over to the authorized person/crew of tank truck for receiving the Bitumen from BDFP. Without FAN slip, a tank truck cannot be allowed to enter BDFP premises and without Plastic card Bitumen cannot be filled in the tank truck from the bay. The allegation against the applicant is that he conspired with accused Ashok Kumar Yadav, Account Officer-II, Avdhesh Kumar, Account Officer-II of his office and issued FAN slip and Magnetic Plastic cards as a consequence whereof the tank trucks were allowed to be filled with Bitumen and after those tankers were filled and were taken out, the entire data in respect of generation of FAN slip, which was created by the applicant himself, was deliberately deleted. The transactions were made in the SAP (System Application Programme) under the electronic signature of the applicant. It is alleged that by such act of the applicant 77.338 MT of bulk bitumen was unauthorisedly removed from the establishment thereby causing a loss of Rs.32.89 lacs.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was newly appointed and was on probation and he was misled into this act and his password may have been misutilized by the person who was well versed with

¶9

the system and since the applicant has already suffered incarceration since 8th November, 2016, having no previous criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail keeping in mind that trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future.

¶10

Learned counsel for CBI submitted that the very fact that the FAN slip/Plastic card was generated under the digital signature/I.D. of the applicant for filling of Taukers/Trucks and, after filling of the Trucks, thereafter, entries were deleted under the digital signature/identity of the applicant, from SAP, goes to show that the applicant was the main person involved and since the applicant was the person incharge of and in control of SAP, he cannot hide his liability by shifting the blame on other officers. It has been submitted that by such act of the applicant, loss running into several lacs has been caused to the Corporation and therefore the applicant is not entitled to bail.

¶11

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant, at this stage.

¶12

The bail application is rejected . The trial Court would endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of next six months.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.3.2018. Rks.

Animesh Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Ghaziabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animesh Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Ghaziabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhool Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyanendra Singh @ Nathan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Sajiwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

imrana Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.