G.P.Srivastava - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the applicant was posted as store keeper in the office of Tubewell Division but he did not hand over the charge. He was suspended on 11.7.2001 and was reinstated on 12.9.2001. He was directed to handover the charge but thereafter the applicant did not return. A committee was constituted and inventory was prepared. As a result of physical verification the articles worth Rs. 7, 17,964.50p. and 1,17,376 were found short. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was always ready and willing to hand over charge but it was not taken from him. The inventory was not prepared in his presence and there was no shortage. Even from the Annexures-2A, 2B and 3B which are letters of the applicant it appears that he was not willing to hand over the charge. Thereafter vide letter Annexures-4A and 4B dated 19.5.2001 and 24.5.2001 the applicant expressed his willingness to handover the charge but in the said letter it has not been alleged that he came in the office and prayed for handing over the charge. In the way the applicant failed to hand over the charge. No ground for bail is made out. This bail application is rejected.;