Shashiprakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145497

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6299 of 2023

Applicant :- Shashiprakash Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation made in the FIR, the applicant being Recovery Officer in Land T Finance Limited at Jhansi, has misappropriated huge money of Rs.12,59,276/- of the company. He further submits that the applicant was appointed as Recovery Officer and was doing work of collection money. The applicant has regularly depositing the collection amount in the account of the Company. The applicant was doing the said work under one Diwakar Kannaujiya, who had told the applicant that whatever amount you have collected, some amount of the said collection money may be deposited in the account of the Company and remaining amount may be given to me and in this regard, the applicant has transferred the amount of

¶9

Rs.1,80,000/-, in the account of Diwakar Kannaujiya. The applicant has also deposited a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- and 25,000/- in the account of account holders of the company and remaining amount of Rs.9,07,000/- has also been given to Diwakar Kannaujiya in Grant Siddhi Hotel, as such, the applicant has given the entire amount of Rs.12,59,276/- either by Diwakar Kannaujiya or he has deposited in the account of account holder of the Company.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has not misappropriate amount of the Company as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant was doing his job under Diwakar Kannaujiya because he was Area Collection Manager and the applicant is duty bound to do the work as directed by Diwakar Kannaujiya, as such, the applicant has done his work as per the direction/guidelines given by Diwakar Kannaujiya and when Diwakar Kannaujiya has misappropriated the said money, then he left the Company and joined another Company and when the applicant contacted him about the forgery made by him, then he told to the applicant that there is no need to deposit the said amount in the account of the Company. He further submits that the the investigation is going on. He further submits that applicant was also charge sheeted by the Company and suspended from service and after found guilty, he was removed from service. He further submits that since the appointment of the applicant, there was no complaint against the applicant but Diwakar Kannaujiya in collusion with the employee of the Company has lodged the impugned FIR. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The investigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is having previous criminal history of one casein which the

¶11

applicant is on bail by the court below, the same has been mentioned in paragraph 19 of the affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection of the applicant by submitting that the applicant by preparing forged receipt has misappropriated huge amount of Rs.12 lakhs above of the Company. In departmental enquiry, the applicant was found guilty. Prosecution witnesses in their statements have fully supported the prosecution story. Allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶14

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶15

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶16

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below and seeks grant of regular bail, his application shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 Ajeet

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashiprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashiprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj @ Banti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samsu @ Samsuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another