SRI PAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the accused- applicant and learned Counsel for the State and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.

(2.) SUBMISSION of the learned Counsel for the accused-applicant is that the applicant was holding the post of Prabhari Adhikari Sampati at the time of alleged crime which is said to have been committed by him. The allegation against him is that he executed the sale- deed of the plots which were meant for commercial purpose to private person for residential purpose. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel that there is no other allegation against the applicant. Learned Counsel submits that there is nothing on record to reveal that the applicant was benefited in any way for this act. It is also submitted that the applicant has got retired long back in the year 2007 and had an unblemished career throughout his service. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood that the applicant would evade the proceedings of the trial. The applicant is in jail since 5.5.2011 as averred in para 2 of the bail application.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, let the accused- applicant be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 1998, under sections 193, 196, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B, I.P.C. and section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) P.C. Act, P.S. Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned/remand Magistrate.