Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2575 (ALL)

Ahmad Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2011-11-14

SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI

body2011
Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J.:- Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. Prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant Ahmad Ali in case crime No.118 of 2010, under sections 420,406,409,421/34 IPC P.S. Bharthana District Etawah. The prosecution case in nut shell is that the informant Abhilakh Singh runs M/s Kayam Rice Mill situate at Usrahar Road, Bharthana. He has got two bank accounts in the State Bank of India at Bharthana, namely, Account No.30090718103 and Account No.10665812537. After obtaining statement of his account from the bank, the complainant came to know that the Branch Manager Sri Ahmad Ali posted at Bharthana Branch, has transferred the following amounts from his account which are extracted below : Sl. No. Account No. Date Amount withdrawn Name of the transferred A/c holders 1. 30090718103 29.12.2007 Rs.50,000/- 30293750454 Saniya Bairiyani 2. 30090718103 24.1.2008 Rs.50,000/- 10665862656 Saniya Bairiyani 3. 30090718103 22.2.2008 Rs.2,00,000/- 10665010255 Mohit Traders Lakhna 4. 30090718103 28.2.2008 Rs.10,000/- 30662237895 Daughter and Son-in-law 5. 30090718103 19.5.2008 Rs.25,000/- 30321049483 Mohit Traders, Lakhna 6. 30090718103 10.6.2008 Rs.9,000/- 300731553842 Samim Ali (Son ) 7. 30090718103 12.6.2008 Rs.15,535/- Mehrawali 8. 30090718103 30.10.2008 Rs.6,10,115/- Sabnam Traders (Daughter ) 4. The aforementioned amount was transferred to the accounts of different persons including his son, daughter and son-in-law without consent of the complainant and without any voucher or cheque. The notice was given to the bank to deposit the aforesaid amount in his accounts and ultimately, an FIR was lodged against the applicant. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he was Branch Manager at Bharthana Branch up to 4.2.2008 and he is not responsible for the transactions made thereafter. It is further submitted that his wife Smt. Jaitoon Bano is a partner in the aforesaid rice mill having a share of 35% was fully empowered to transfer the amount from the account of the firm without consent of the informant. It is also submitted that she has transferred the aforesaid amounts to different account holders, as they were traders and suppliers of the paddy or transporters of paddy to the above rice mill. It is also submitted that she has transferred the aforesaid amounts to different account holders, as they were traders and suppliers of the paddy or transporters of paddy to the above rice mill. It is also contended that a criminal case has been instituted against the informant on the application of Smt. Jaitoon Bano under the orders of the Magistrate on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is pending against the informant under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. at Criminal Case No.118A of 2010. 6. On the other hand, the learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant and submitted that the applicant as Branch Manager of SBI Bharthana Branch has transferred about Rs.10 lacs from Account No.30090718103 and Rs.1,35,000/- from Account No.1065812537 without any cheque or withdrawal vouchers on different dates in the account of his son, daughter and son-in-law. How he has transferred the aforesaid amounts has nowhere been explained by him. Even Smt. Jaitoon Bano, who owns the liability of transfer of the aforesaid amounts to the account of different account holders, has not disclosed as to by what cheque or withdrawal vouchers the amounts have been transferred from the accounts of the informant. Even if she was authorised to make transactions from the account of the complainant as partner of the firm, there must have been some cheque, withdrawal form or vouchers or any direction of Smt. Jaitoon Bano to the bank to transfer the aforesaid amounts to the accounts of above account holders. Nothing has been filed on record to show that the above account holders had been participants in the business transactions of the above firm to whom amounts have been paid. As regards the criminal case against the complainant filed by Smt. Jaitoon Bano, it will be decided on its own merit. 7. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Apparently, a huge amount has been transferred from the accounts of the complainant by the applicant without any cheque or vouchers or withdrawal forms to his near relatives. He is under an obligation to explain as to by what mode the amounts have been transferred by him. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, taking into account the amount of transactions so made by the applicant prima-facie, appears to be unauthorised. He is under an obligation to explain as to by what mode the amounts have been transferred by him. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, taking into account the amount of transactions so made by the applicant prima-facie, appears to be unauthorised. The applicant has got no case for bail and accordingly his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.