Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) THE applicant Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, who was posted as Assistant Postmaster in Head Post Office, Saharanpur at the relevant time, has sought his release on bail by means of this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr. P.C.'), in Case Crime No. 386C/2006, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.'), P. S. Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the F.I.R. lodged on 27.8.2006 at Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur by the complainant Subodh Chandra Mathur, in brief, are that on retirement from U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., in the year 2003, payment of Rs. 9,00,000 (Rupees nine lac) was made to the complainant towards Provident Fund and Gratuity, which he invested in monthly income scheme in Head Post Office, Saharanpur, through authorized agent Prashant Tyagi, his wife Smt. Kavita Tyagi, brother Sushant Tyagi and father Pooran Chandra Tyagi. The complainant had deposited the said amount in his name as well as in the names of his sons Mudit and Shobhit and his wife Smt. Neelu Mathur. Rs. 3,00,000 each were deposited in A/c Nos. 1016784 and 1016785 on 28.8.2003 in the name of complainant and his son Mudit. Thereafter, Rs. 3,00,000 were deposited by the complainant in account No. 1020020 on 28.5.2004 in the name of his son Shobhit Mathur and wife Neelu Mathur. Interest on monthly basis on these deposits was paid to the complainant up to June, 2006, but pass-books of aforesaid accounts were not given by the agent to the complainant. When no person came to make payment of interest in the month of July 2006, the complainant made inquiry from Head Post Office, Saharanpur, then he came to know that entire amount of account Nos. 1016784 and 1016785 has been withdrawn on 3.3.2005 by Prashant Tyagi by making forged signatures of Account Holders on withdrawal form (SB7), showing his brother Sushant Tyagi as witness and in the same manner, entire amount of account No. 1020020 was also withdrawn on 16.11.2005 by the said agent through some Jaspal Singh showing him partner. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that entire amount of the aforesaid accounts has been withdrawn due to collusion and conspiracy of Assistant Postmaster Kanhiya Lal Sharma and officials Amar Singh and Lokesh Kumar of Head Post Office, Saharanpur. I have heard argument of Sri Irfan Chaudhary advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State. The main submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that with similar allegations some other first information reports were also lodged against the applicant in district Saharanpur and in the cases pertaining to those F.I.R., the applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in Case Crime Nos. 386-B.M./2006, 386-A.E./2006, 386-A.Y./2006, 386-AT/2006, 386-A.O./2006, 386-5B/2007, 386-CB/2006, 386-BF/2006 and 386-CE/2006 and hence the applicant deserves bail in present case also on the basis of the principles of parity. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards certain bail orders which have been filed as Annexure-2 (Paper Nos. 22 to 25).
(3.) ON merit, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that entire amount from the accounts mentioned in the F.I.R. was withdrawn by the authorized agent and since no amount has been withdrawn by the applicant, hence on this ground also, he deserves bail. It was also submitted by the learned counsel in this context that there is no material in the case diary to show that there was any conspiracy or collusion between the applicant and authorized agents, who have withdrawn the money from the accounts of the complainant and his family members. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that if the authorized agent after withdrawing the money from the accounts in question did not pay the said money to the Account Holders, then applicant and other employees of post office are not responsible for this act and only the agents can be held liable for the offences alleged to have been committed. It was also submitted in this context by the learned counsel that no money was entrusted to the applicant by the complainant or Account Holders and hence the offence punishable under Section 406, I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant.;