RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The applicant has made a request for bail in Crime No. 192 of 2000 under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B, I. P. C. , P. S. Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar. At the time of hearing of first bail application, the applicant pressed for short term bail only on the ground that his wife is suffering from cancer. The ap plicant was ordered to be released on parole for two months. The bail was not considered on merits. The facts in brief are as follows.

(2.) THE complainant of this case is U. P. State Hathkargha Nigam Ltd. Certain Saries were to be supplied by the District Magistrate, Purniya (Bihar) to the com plainant. THE applicant and the other co-accused of this case forged the authority letters and took saries worth Rs. 55 Lakhs and mis-appropriated them. THEreafter, the F. I. R. was lodged.

(3.) ANOTHER contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there was conversation between the complainant and co-accused Atma Ram, which has been Tape recorded. This conversation has been mentioned in para 14 of the affidavit, which has not been denied. That according to this conversation, the entire articles are with Atma Ram as admitted by him. That no property came into possession of the applicant and he is in jail for the last about nine months. That there is no chance of this case being concluded at an early date.