ISHWAR NATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A well orchestrated well planned and dexterously executed conspiracy of provident fund money relating to class four employees of district court Ghaziabad was unearthed by the vigilance department of High Court in an inquiry conducted by it which brought forth that Coffer chest of Provident Fund money of class four employees of Ghaziabad district court was tinkered creating a scam with Ashutosh Asthana, Central Nazir of district court, Ghaziabad, being the main pivotal perpetrator of the crime which offenses are now being investigated and the accused are being identified by C.B.I. under the orders passed by Supreme court. In the registered crime being Crime No. 152 of 2008, for offenses under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B I.P.C. and 8, 9, 14 and 13(1) (D), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad relating to the said offenses, the present applicant Ishwar Nath Sharma seeks bail after he has lost from both the courts in his hankered said outcome. In bird eye view the factual matrix contained in the FIR, annexure no.1, surfaces that a FIR was lodged by Rama Jain, Special Judge, C.B.I., District Court, Ghaziabad, on 15.2.2008 at police station Kavi Nagar District Ghaziabad, which was registered as crime number and under offences mentioned above, against thirty nine named accused persons, coupled with another 13 named class three employees of district court, Ghaziabad, as malefactors, with the allegations that an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department of High Court, Allahabad has surfaced conspiracy of embezzlement of forth class employees provident fund money worth millions of rupees with Ashutosh Asthana, Central Nazir of the district court Ghaziabad, at the helm of the whole conspiracy. The period of such crime lies between the years 2001 to 2008, and the adopted ways were by showing outsiders and class three employees as district court class four employees, and thereby embezzling Provident Fund money. On the direction of the High Court, informant had lodged the FIR. Such a registered crime was initially investigated by the local police, which, after investigation conducted by it, has now laid charge sheet against some of the accused. However, under the directions issued by the Apex Court in SLP No. 12981 of 2008 and also under the orders passed by Government of U.P. By it's notification dated 10.9.08, under section 6 of Delhi Police Establishment Act the investigation of the crime was transferred to C.B.I. which is now seized of the investigation. Commenced investigations conducted uphill now reveal the planned dexterous methodology employed by the main accused in spacing the coffer chest of provident fund money in execution of the offenses. Some genuine payments due to outsiders for the services rendered by them, who were nor are the employees of the court, were made through government treasury cheques, involving them in the crime, in some cases outsiders were shown to be employees of the court and money was withdrawn in their names, in other cases class three employees were bracketed as class four employees to withdraw the money, in some other types of cases money was withdrawn more than the entitlement of class four employees and so on which methodology is under process of being fully unearthed by C.B.I. Initially the crime involved four hundred cheques which number now has expanded to seven hundred. I have heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, advocate in support of this bail applications and Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA in opposition and have perused bail application, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. It is submitted by Sri Singhal that the applicant is an old and sick person and he is incarcerated in jail since 4.5.2008. It is further contended that the applicant was an employee, reader (Peshkar) of the court but he retired from permanent service in the year 1999 and there after he was re-engaged on ad-hoc basis from August 2000 and worked till August 2006. Learned counsel argued that there are four cheques anointed on the applicant and the total amount of money alleged to have been embezzled by the applicant is Rs.6,75,000/-. It is submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the first three cheques but had the knowledge of the last cheque of an amount of Rs. 1 lac. It is submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit the total amount as still in his account there are more than 9 lacs of rupees left. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal history nor he is wanted in any other case and therefore, he should be allowed bail. It is also contended that the other accused persons have been released on bail by this Court in the same crime and therefore, applicant should also be released on bail. Opposing the bail learned counsel for the C.B.I. as well as learned AGA argued that the applicant was an employee of the Court being a 'Reader'. He Had put in great length of service. Being a 'Reader', he was fully aware with the working of the Court and the provident fund account. Admittedly, he had retired from active service in the year 1999 and then was re-employed in the year 2000. Learned counsel submitted that this re-employment was also manipulated through Ashutosh Asthana with whom applicant had a close affinity. It is also pointed out on the strength of paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. that the applicant was actively involved in the crime as conspirator from June 2004 till August 2006 more than two year and during this period the total amount which has embezzled by him is more than six lacs. It is submitted that if the applicant will be released on bail, fair trial will not be possible and the course of investigation will be hampered as already many important documents have been destroyed and/or stolen. It is submitted that the applicant has admitted the knowledge of receipt of Rs. one lac and therefore, his conscious involvement in the conspiracy is percy established. For the aforesaid reasons, it was prayed that the bail prayer of the applicant be declined. I have considered the rival submissions raised by both the sides and have gone through the record of this Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application. It is admitted by the applicant that he had knowledge about the excess money deposited in his account. He has been working as a permanent court employee for many years and therefore, his knowledge regarding provident fund money can be safely presumed. Applicant allowed himself to be dragged knowingly and consciously into the conspiracy, which has brought huge furor both in media and press and has brought a disrepute to the whole system. Looking to the gravity of charge and the fact that there was conscious involvement of the applicant, I am not inclined to grant him bail. Bail prayer of the applicant is declined. Bail Application is rejected.