Ravindra Singh - (1.) HEARD Sri J. S. Sengar and Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.
(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation against the applicant is that he has identified a person who withdrew the amount of Rs. 1,47,050. IT is alleged that the cheque of Rs. 14,775 was issued by Life Insurance Corporation, Fatehpur in the name of one Ganesh Prasad Verma, the same was sent by speed post which did not reach to Sri Ganesh Prasad Verma. The cheque was encashed after opening a false account in the Head Post Office, Fatehpur in the name of Ganesh Prasad Verma thereafter the cheque was deposited in that account and was encashed by co-accused Bharat Bhushan. Bharat Bhushan was identified as Ganesh Prasad Verma by the applicant but there is no such evidence that the applicant has any knowledge that the cheque was issued in the name of Ganesh Prasad Verma has been deposited by Bharat Bhushan by opening an account in the name of Ganesh Prasad Verma and the applicant was having no knowledge about any forgery committed by co-accused Bharat Bhushan Rastogi and there is no evidence to show that the applicant has committed any forgery. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in this case by committing a fraud a cheque of payment issued by L.I.C. has been deposited in the forged account of Ganesh Prasad Verma opened in the name of Ganesh Prasad Verma in fact it was opened by Bharat Bhushan Rastogi and the applicant has identified Bharat Bhushan Rastogi as Ganesh Prasad Verma, the applicant was having knowledge that in a fraudulent manner the cheque was being encashed, therefore, the applicant is also equally liable for committing the forgery and for illegally withdrawing the money. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and considering the gravity of the offence which is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.;