Single judge allowed bail to Pawan Kumar Mishra in a bail application arising from allegations of employee misappropriation and subsequent litigation involving the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court allowed bail with conditions.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19018 of 2018
Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Anand Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Srivastava,Shashi Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri S.G.Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhai Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Shashi Prakash Rai and Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsels for the informant.
The allegation against the applicant is that he was an employee of the informant's company and from the year 2012 to 2014 he misappropriated different amounts and transferred the same to the persons of his choice.
The informant is an employee of the company and has lodged the first information report alleging that the amount of VAT payable to the department was transferred in the account of the applicant by the informant company. Instead of depositing the amount in the account of the department, he transferred it to the third parties without permission of the employer.
A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant wherein the account statement has been annexed showing transfer of amount of VAT by way of NEFT from the applicant's own account to the account of the department. It has further been argued that number of cheques issued by the applicant in favour of the informant company have been dishonoured and the cheques issued by the informant's company in favour of the applicant have also been dishonourned. Both the parties had entered into the litigations under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
From the above facts, it is clear that the dispute between parties is not one sided. Both the parties have their allegations against each other which are engaging the attention of different courts.
Learned counsel for the informant has argued that the
applicant has misappropriated an amount of Rs.80 lakhs or more and he has been dismissed by the Company from the job. He has floated his own company which is still not in existence and these amounts have been transferred illegally in the name of company since the company had no capital of its own.
On the other hand learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail.
After considering the rival submissions, it is clear that dispute between the parties is regarding the amounts allegedly misused by the applicant from the year 2012 to 2014. The First information report has been lodged only on 11.03.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant states that after he sent a notice under Section 138 N.I.A Act to the company of the informant, the counter blast proceedings have been initiated by way of first information report, in pursuance whereof he has been arrested and is in jail since 18.03.2018. The applicant has no prior criminal history and after implication in this case, he has been implicated in 17 cases.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Pawan Kumar Mishra involved in Case Crime No.200 of 2018, under Sections 420, 408, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, DistrictBareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 13.8.2018
SS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, an employee accused of misappropriating funds and having pending criminal litigation with the informant, is entitled to bail pending trial.
Whether prior criminal history implicating the applicant in 17 other cases is a bar to granting bail in this matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶14
(2018)3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Pawan Kumar Mishra
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
