High CourtsSingle Bench

Jai Prakash Shah vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 9 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 UK CK 0050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477A · Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2305 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 317 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant Jai Prakash Shah is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 71 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477A, 120B IPC and Section 13(1) (c)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, at the relevant time, the applicant was working as an Accountant in the Government Treasury, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal and he misappropriated various accounts. After investigation, it was revealed that, in fact, the applicant siphoned of Rs.1,20730,35/- in his three accounts and he also transferred Rs.34,60,113/- in his brother’s account.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody since 07.01.2024. His father is unwell. There is no one to look after him back at home. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.

5.

Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant transferred Government money in his three accounts and total Rs.1,20730,35/-were transferred by the applicant in those accounts. It is argued that the applicant had also transferred Rs.34,60,113/- in the account of his brother Som Prakash and not even a single penny has been returned. Alongwith the counter affidavit, a transaction inquiry has also been enclosed by the State.

6.

It is a case of misappropriation of the Government money to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore. The allegation is that the applicant was Accountant in the Government Treasury and he transferred the money in various accounts run by him. The applicant has not returned the money or any part of it.

7.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

8.

The bail application is rejected.