VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava learned counsel in support of this bail application and Sri G.S.Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA in opposition and I have perused bail application, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. Applicant Ved Prakash has sought his release on bail in Crime No. 152 of 2008, for offenses under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1), 13(2) (D) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad as his bail prayer in the aforesaid crime has bee refused by the courts below. The prosecution allegations against the applicant, in brief, are that he connived with Ashutosh Ashthana, Central Nazir, district court, Ghaziabad, embezzled Provident Fund money of class four employees of district court regarding which an inquiry was conducted by the vigilance department of High Court, Allahabad and thereafter ,on the direction of the High Court, a FIR was lodged by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad , which was registered as crime number and for offenses mentioned above. The embezzled amount anointed on the applicant is Rs. 10,10,000/-. Sri Sharad Srivastva, learned advocate submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on suspicion and he is incarcerated in jail since 17.3.2008. He contended that the applicant is 68 years old and since he is the father-in-law of the Narendra , an employee of the court , therefore he has been falsely implicated and he had no knowledge about the conspiracy hatched up by the main accused. It is further contended that in the counter affidavit C.B.I it self has averred that investigation in respect of the applicant is in progress ans till date no definite opinion can be given regarding the culpability of the applicant in the crime and in support of the said contentions , learned counsel has invited my attention on paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. It is further contended that His name was spelt out by central nazir only to save his head from the crime in which only he was involved. It is argued that but for the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of prime accused , there is no other incriminating evidence against the applicant joining him with the crime. There is no evidence of conspiracy against him and, in fact, applicant is a victim of the neferious criminal activity of Ashutosh Ashthana. Applicant does not have any criminal history nor he is wanted in any case and he is ready to deposit the amount charged against him. It is, further submitted that statement of co accused is not a legal evidence and can not be looked into against the applicant and hence there is no legal evidence against the applicant. Co accused have also been granted bail and hence concludingly, it was prayed that the applicant be released on bail in the afore mentioned offenses. Opposing bail of the applicants it was contended by C.B.I as well as by learned AGA that the fraud relate with the court and the applicants have connived with Ashutosh Ashtana and looking to the inormity of the charge and the dimension of investigation which is swelling day in and day out the applicants be not released. I have considered rival contentions in the backdrop of the factual allegations. What is not disputed by the rival sides is the fact that the applicant is an outsiders and he is 68 years of age. There is no expert opinion against him till date and investigation in his respect is still in progress. He is incarcerated in jail since 17.3.2008 more than a year. The main evidence against the applicants is the confessional statement of the main accused. How much of that statement can be utilised by the court has to be looked into by the trial judge. Admissibility of the ex- culpatry part of that 164 Cr.P.C. statement is also an aspect to be decided by the trial judge but the fact remains is that but for disclosers made by Central Nazir, there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Looking to the over all circumstances of the charge and evidence collected till now, but with out expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I consider it appropriate to release the applicant Ved Prakash on bail in the aforesaid Crime No. 152 of 2008 for offenses under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B I.P.C. and 13(1), 13( 2 ) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad on his executing a personal bond of Rs. Fifty thousands with two solvent sureties each in the like amount on the following conditions (i) that the applicant shall co-operate with the investigating agency,(ii) that he will not leave district Ghaziabad without intimation to the I.O.(iii) that the applicant shall deposit the charged amount with the Special Judge, C.B.I, Ghaziabad, through a bank draft in the name of the C.B.I Court , Ghaziabad, which shall be subject to the final out come of the investigation / case. Bail applications is allowed on the above conditions.