LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-228

GYAN CHAND Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GHAZIABAD

Decided On November 18, 2013
GYAN CHAND Appellant
V/S
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Ghaziabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail sine 20.09.2013. The applicant who is also a Class IV employee in the hospital was only asked to write the indents for medicines duly signed by the doctors and in turn the indents were handed over to the patients and in turn they received medicines from the shop and thereafter the shopkeeper raised bills against those indents. The only case of the prosecution is that those indents were in the handwriting of the applicant and in fact no patient was examined by the doctors nor the indents were signed by the doctors and it was in collusion with the applicant and the shopkeeper, the applicant tried to play fraud upon the hospital. However, even according to the prosecution, no amount was paid over to the shopkeeper by the hospital or the Cantonment Board. Hence, the applicant has not received any benefit out of the alleged fraud. Further the prosecution has failed to prove that the signatures of the doctors on the alleged indents were also forged by the applicant. The handwriting expert only submitted that the indents are in the writing of the applicant. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history. Counsel further submitted that in the departmental enquiry the applicant was not named nor found guilty. Further in the closure report/chargesheet the prosecution exonerated all the doctors, pharmacists and other officers concerned and implicated the applicant only in the said fraud. The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) The counsel for the C.B.I. Sri Anurag Khanna opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant forged seventeen indents in all which were in his handwriting and were not signed by the doctors. Even the patients name mentioned in those indent were not examined by the doctors on that very date and the said indents were sent to the shop and the shopkeeper raised a bill to the tune of Rs.2,18,519/- and when the prosecution/investigating agency investigated it was found that neither the patient were examined by the doctors nor such medicines were prescribed and no medicines were taken by the patients from the shop. In fact, the applicant in collusion with the shopkeeper forged those indents and tried to take monetary gains although due to timely intervention, he could not succeed. No sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.