Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/23305/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granted conditional bail to an applicant accused of misappropriating funds from a government undertaking, citing lack of criminal history, offer to return money, and pandemic constraints, albeit requiring a monetary deposit.

What did the court decide?

Granted conditional bail on personal bond with sureties, effective after short-term bail, subject to deposit of 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount.

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23305 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atharva Dixit,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sagar Vaish, learned counsels for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

FIR has been lodged by the Assistant General Manager (Operations) of Uttar Pradesh Poorva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Regional Office, Varanasi, alleging that the employees employed in the Nigam aforesaid have colluded and fraudulently misappropriated huge amounts. The allegation against the applicant is that he has misappropriated Rs. 3,28,750/- and the money has been transferred in his personal account. Accused persons have manipulated bank sheets of the field employees and transferred their wages in their accounts. The work of the accused employees was to prepare salary bill, prepare the list of field employees and perform the duties related to accounts.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was employed as account in the Nigam. The Nigam is not a government organization but is registered under Companies Act. Hence the applicant is not a Government employee and his implication under Section 409 IPC is not justified. The applicant was a contractual employee appointed in the year 2006. He did not credited any amount in his account rather additional amount was created in his account which is about two times of the money in his account which he is ready to return. A show cause notice was issued to him on 03.10.2019 to which he replied on 05.10.2019. No order was passed after considering the same and FIR was lodged prior to the notice given to him. In his reply to the notice the applicant had stated that he was contractual employee and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no other source of income. He was never involved in any misconduct in the office. He has been falsely implicated in

¶8

this case by other employees. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that charge sheet in this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days and therefore the applicant is entitled to default bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S. Kasi vs. State Through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District in Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2433 of 2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit and his Senior counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the applicant was working as account in the Nigam and was generating cash voucher, bank statements, wage bills, etc., and maintaining all the files regarding financial transactions of the Nigam. He misappropriated the funds by making counterfeit signatures and by way of fraudulent transactions. It has further been submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Poorva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., is an undertaking of Uttar Pradesh Government and it was established on 23th of May, 1989 to create job opportunities for ex-service man. Hence the implication of the applicant under Section 409 IPC is justified. He has further submitted that the applicant was involved in misappropriation of money since the year 2006 which has come to light only in the year 2019. Now the misappropriated amount has crossed more than Rs. 3,84,29,304/-. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, Sanjay Dutt vs. State Through C.B.I. Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 and State of Maharashtra vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma (Mrs) Alias Ayesha Khan (2002) 2 SCC 121.

¶10

After hearing the rival contentions this court finds that there is allegation of misappropriation of Rs.3,28,750/against the applicant in the FIR. Along with counter affidavit no material has been brought on record to prove that amount of Rs. 3,84,29,304/- have been misappropriated. The argument of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on default bail is not correct for the reasons stated by the counsel for the informant on the basis of the authority cited by him. The employer Nigam of the applicant appears to be creation of Uttar Pradesh government and therefore the argument that the offence under Section 409 IPC is not made out against the applicant made by the

¶11

counsel for the applicant is misconceived.

¶12

After considering the fact that the applicant has offered to return the amounts in dispute, this court feels that he is entitled to be granted conditional bail. He is in jail since 09.01.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. It appears to be his first implication. All the offences alleged are triable by Magistrate.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Verma, in Case Crime No. 1236 of 2019, under Sections- 120-B, 471, 468, 467, 406, 420, 419 and 409 IPC, Police Station- Cantt., District- Varanasi, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶19

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after

¶20

normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

The applicant will deposit 50 percent of Rs. 3,28,750/before the trial court as a pre-condition for his release on bail. This deposit of money will be without prejudice to the right of the applicant to contest the trial. The money deposited would be released in favour of the Uttar Pradesh Poorva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., by the court below forthwith.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.12.2020 SS

¶26

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.12.02 18:17:46 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Verma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mashwoofur Rahman Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raju @ Ashif Sayeed and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shane Alam Vs State of U.P.

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.