Allowed

Ramakant Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2023/114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court converted an interim order granting anticipatory bail to an absolute order. The applicant, an accused in an embezzlement case involving forged documents, satisfied the court that he had no criminal antecedents and had cooperated. The court noted that affidavits did not reveal any grounds to revise the initial view.

What did the court decide?

Granted implicion processing and bail: dismissed the anticipatory bail application on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 considered the interim order dated 18/01/2023 to be made absolute.

Ramakant Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62866

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 114 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramakant Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Anuj Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ayush Chaudhary,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

On 18.01.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State this court had passed the following order:

¶7

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 214/2019, under Sections 409/419/420/467/468/471/477A I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

As per the prosecution case in the F.I.R. it is alleged that in the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri - Branch, Badagaon illegal demand drafts/bank cheques have been paid to the tune of Rs. 26,28,847.35/- and embezzlement of the said amount has been done. This offence has been committed by the applicant in collusion with other two accused persons. All of them are bank employees.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although charge sheet has been filed, however, no investigation regarding the date on which the alleged forgery has been committed has been done. It is admitted in the charge sheet that the amount in question has been received by the beneficiaries in their personal account.

¶11

It is further submitted that the after the beneficiaries have received the amount in their personal bank account and the same has been returned by them to the applicant and other two co-accused persons on their asking could not be believed as there is nothing on the record to corroborate these allegations.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application submitting that the documents/letters on the basis of which the amount has been disbursed which credited in the account of the beneficiaries on those letters forged signatures have been made. The beneficiaries are not registered in the department under any scheme. The bank account's cheque/draft have not been issued from the bank and thus, by making forged signatures of District Social Welfare Officer on the basis of he forged list and forged letters, the amount have been embezzled.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant while rebutting the said argument has submitted that in the departmental inquiry, the liability of the applicant was fixed and the amount for which he was liable has been reclaimed by the department by passing a punishment order and after that he has been reinstated in the services. The punishment order is on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

¶15

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶16

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed ten days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶17

List on 16.02.2023.

¶18

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he has cooperated in the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the amount alleged to be embezzled by the applicant has been reclaimed by the department and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶21

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."

¶23

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case, but nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶24

Although the opposite party no.2 was granted liberty to file a counter affidavit and the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance through counsel but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the bail bonds have already been furnished in compliance of the interim order dated 18.01.2023.

¶26

The learned A.G.A. could not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant

¶27

In view of above, the interim order dated 18.01.2023 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Preeti.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramakant Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Karan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry. of Home Lko. and Another

Shakeel Ahmad Khan @ Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Om Prakash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Munna Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Muhammed Shafeeque Payeth Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director