GHANSHYAM LAMBA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS is an application seeking regular bail in case crime No. 391 of 2012 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 470, 471, 467, 120B IPC, police station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that initially, Ultratech Cement Company had issued a cheque bearing No. 044998 dated 19.09.2012 of Rs. 87,100/ - in favour of CPR Distributors Pvt. Limited; the cheque was encashed on 26.09.2012; meanwhile, a scanned copy of cheque was prepared and amount of Rs. 25,50,00,000/ - was written on the scanned copy of cheque and the cheque was shown to have been issued in favour of Shree Jyoti Gramodyog Sansthan by the present applicant; accused applicant approached Prem Chandra Saini, Praveen Kumar and Darshana and made them to understand that if cheque is deposited in the account of Shree Jyoti Gramodyog Sansthan belonging to Prem Chandra Saini, then it would be easily encashed. Cheque was deposited in the account of Shree Jyoti Gramodyog Sansthan. However, cheque was returned, which was received by Prem Chandra Saini, thereafter, under the planning name of one Keshav Kumar was entered in the scanned cheque and the cheque was again deposited along with a fabricated document to justify the payment of Rs. 25,50,00,000/ - saying Ultratech Cement Company wanted to purchase 800 bighas of land, therefore, it made payment of Rs. 25,50,00,000/ - in favour of Keshav Kumar; however, considering the huge amount, HDFC Bank officials inquired from Ultratech Cement Company as to whether they had issued such cheque; Ultratech Cement Company refused the same, therefore, forgery and fraud being played by the applicant in collusion with other co -accused came into light.
(2.) MR . R.S. Sammal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that role of the applicant is only that he has identified Prem Chandra Saini and Praveen Kumar in opening the account. Having perused the material available on record and in view of the prosecution story narrated hereinabove, argument of learned counsel for the applicant is neither here nor there. Considering the gravity of the offences, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is rejected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.