Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16272

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 951 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Prashant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for victim whose objection filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to FIR No. 490 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mallawa, District Hardoi.

¶7

As per allegations levelled in the First Information Report, the applicant was instrumental in opening of an account in the name of victim with inclusion of the mobile number of his daughter to be connected with the said account through which money belonging to the victim was appropriated by the applicant and disbursed to his family members.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant as well as the victim are Safai Karamcharies in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that while it is admitted that the applicant had accompanied the victim for opening of the account and his daughter's mobile number was also associated with the said account, he, however, denies any illegal appropriation of the money belonging to the victim. It is submitted that in fact the victim had taken a loan from the applicant and the transfer of amount was as a repayment thereof. It is also submitted that in lieu of registration of the First Information Report, services of applicant have been dismissed with writ petition thereagainst also being dismissed and special appeal being pending. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no illegal appropriation of any amount belonging to the victim and in fact the First Information Report has also been lodged as a measure of retribution by certain officials who were cought red-handed while taking bribes on the basis of complaint made by the applicant who is the union leader of the Safai Karamchari Association. He has also adverted to certain documents to submit that the informant thereafter has also submitted an application denying lodging of any First

¶10

Information Report by him.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite parties has opposed the bail application with the submission that the averments made in the First Information Report clearly make out of cognizable offence against the applicant particularly once it is admitted that the mobile number of applicant's daughter was connected with the new account which was opened and the money was in fact appropriated by the applicant and disbursed upon amongst his family members. The aspect of the victim having obtained a loan and repayment thereof is denied.

¶12

Learned counsel for the victim also submits that as per investigation, the amount has been found to be disbursed from the said account through IMPS. It is also submitted that once the applicant already had existing salary account, there was no occasion for him to open any other new account.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie and subject to evidence being led in trial, it is admitted that a new account had been opened in the name of victim in which admittedly the mobile number of applicant's daughter was linked. The aspect of appropriation of money from the said account opened in the name of victim and disbursed amongst family members of the applicant is also admitted.

¶14

Although, learned counsel for applicant submits that the said appropriation and disbursement was only in lieu of the payment of loan advanced by applicant to the victim, the said aspect would require consideration by evidence by the trial Court. The aspect as adverted by learned counsel for applicant that the informant himself has subsequently denied lodging of any FIR would also the subject matter of evidence to be led in trial.

¶15

It is noticeable that earlier this Court had made an endeavor for the parties to enter into a compromise which, however, has been refused by the victim primarily on the ground that misappropriation amount is of public money and not his personal amount due to which he is incapable of receiving the same for the purposes of compromise.

¶16

In view of such discussions, at this stage, there does not appear to be any good reason to entertain the application, which is accordingly rejected .

¶17

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Satish

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar @ Taiyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sahil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

Akash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Dhar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Bhanu Datt vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Baran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others