Sumita Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Sumita Rawat is in judicial custody in FIR No.254 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal. She has sought her release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

FIR in the instant case is lodged by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Kotdwar. It reveals that while preparing balance sheet, it was revealed that Rs. 23,89,584/- was paid to various contractors. The cheques were summoned from the bank and when the signatories to the cheques were contacted, they denied their signatures on them. Subsequently, one of the files was presented in the office by one Surbhi Bisht, which was allegedly given to her by the co-accused Pankaj Singh Rawat. It was with regard to award of contract to the applicant, who was not a contractor in the Nagar Nigam. The work had already been done and the payment had already been made in the past. Not only this, there were three other cheques issued in the name of Akhilesh Kumar and Mohd. Asif, which were not entered into the Bill Register. The FIR records that these cheques were prepared by the co-accused Pankaj Singh Rawat.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not commit any offence; she did not forge anything; she did not sign any measurement book; she did not forge any cheque; on 12.10.2022 and 21.10.2022, notices were issued to the applicant with regard to certain amounts, which were given to her through cheques, which she replied on 25.10.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that subsequent to it also, notices were issued to the applicant, which she relied; the applicant has not committed any offence; she is a woman; she is in jail; Rs. 17,73,886/- were though deposited in her account, but, the same day, Rs. 18,50,000/- were withdrawn by the co-accused Kuldeep Singh, and on 03.06.2021 also, co-accused Kuldeep Singh withdrew Rs. 7,00,000/- from her account.

Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a case of forgery; on the date when allegedly work was allotted to the applicant, she was not the contractor; the amount was deposited in her account.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

It is a case of serious forgery of preparing forged document with regard to contract, its completion and payment. The cheques were allegedly signed by some person, who was not authorised to do so. Admittedly, the amount was deposited in the account of the applicant on 02.06.2021. It is Rs. 17,73,886/-. The applicant herself has filed a notice dated 12.10.2022, which is Annexure No.2 to the bail application, to argue that, in fact, notice was given to the applicant, which she replied. No reply to this notice is filed on record. Reply to a notice given to the applicant on 21.10.2022, has been filed apart from some other replies. Various questions would filed discussion during the trial. Has the applicant been, in any way, in connivance with the co-accused Kuldeep Singh for preparing the forged tender documents, work orders, etc.?

Admittedly, the amount was deposited in the account of the applicant on 02.06.2021. It was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. What is interesting to note is that on 01.06.2021, in the account of the applicant, the total balance was Rs. 3,94,732/-. On 02.06.2021, Rs. 17,73,886/- were deposited in the account, which, according to the prosecution, was procured by wrongful means, by forgery, and on the same date, more than Rs. 18,00,000/- were withdrawn by the applicant. Does it mean that the applicant was also involved in the offence? As stated, it would filed scrutiny during trial.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.