Allowed

Suresh Punia v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2023CRLMB/2047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to the petitioner, a suspended Sub-Post Officer, who was accused of embezzling public funds and forging documents while working at the Nagaur post office. The court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on merits, noting the investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Suresh Punia Vs Union of India — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:33075]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2047/2023

¶4

Suresh Punia S/o Shri Dhonkalram Punia, Aged About 40 Years, (Working As An Sub-Post Officer), (Presently Suspended), Nagaur City, Nagaur, R/o Outside Of Mahi Gate, Near To Surana, Baghechi Ke Pass, District Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Central Board Of Investigation (C.b.i.), Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Dhirendra Singh Sr.Advocate
	Mr.Vijay Bishnoi. Ms.Priyanka Borana.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit,Dy.S.G.
For Complainant(s)	: Mr.Prakash Raika.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶11

05/10/2023

¶12

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.RC0312022A0002/2022, ACB Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶13

Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the petitioner while working on the post of Sub Post Master, Nagaur, created forged documents in order to open new fake post office accounts. Learned counsel further submitted that as per prosecution, the petitioner closed the genuine accounts of the customers and withdrew the money. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation, 16 vouchers were found missing for which the petitioner could not provide any satisfactory reply. It was also submitted that using these fake accounts and missing

[2023:RJ-JD:33075]

[CRLMB-2047/2023]

(2 of 3)

vouchers, the petitioner during the period from May, 2021 to October, 2021, prematurely closed 80 accounts out of total 106 accounts and embezzled amount to the tune of Rs.1,61,56,682 for his personal gains.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that challan against the petitioner has already been filed by the investigating agency before competent criminal court. It was thus, submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessitated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶19

Per contra , learned Dy. Solicitor General, Union of India and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after having perused the contents of the FIR and the challan papers, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner has been charged for embezzling large sum of public money by creating forged accounts and abusing the position held by him in Post Office, Nagaur. This Court however, cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigation qua the petitioner has

[2023:RJ-JD:33075]

[CRLMB-2047/2023]

(3 of 3)

already culminated into filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner before competent criminal court. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by Court of Magistrate and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required in the present case. This Court further finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial pending against him before competent criminal court is likely to consume sufficiently long time to be concluded.

¶26

In view of discussion made herein above, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Suresh Punia S/o Shri Dhonkalram Punia shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.RC0312022A0002/2022, ACB Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶28

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶29

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶30

/tarun goyal/

¶31

Sr.No.17

Suresh Punia v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Punia v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Utsav Lal and Ors. Vs State

Shrilal Vs State

Mangat Ram Vs State

Rajesh @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayshree Mehra Vs State of Rajasthan