RAJESH DAYAL KHARE,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the Assistant in the Bank and the allegation against him that he had withdrawn Rs. 3,72,000/-from the accounts of various account holders. It is further contended that the account holders, from whose account the money had been withdrawn, had given statement that they had themselves withdrawn the amount. It is next contended that the entire amount has been deposited by the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to departmental politics and he has no criminal history. It is lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 23.08.2012 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Vijay Sharma involved in case crime No. 2 of 2009 under Section 420, 468, 467, 471 I.P.C.? police station Deoband, District Saharanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction? of court concerned on the following conditions that:- 1.?? the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; 2.? the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; 3.? the applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. ;