Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 663 (UTT)

SANTOSH KUMAR NAUTIYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-09-29

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant Santosh Kumar Nautiyal, who is in jail in connection with FIR no. 20 of 2011, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 IPC, relating to police station, Mussoorie, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. A complaint was lodged by the complainant Manmohan Kuriyal on 12.08.2011, mentioning therein that he took over charge of the post of Principal, Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Mussoorie from the present accused-applicant on 23.01.2010. A sum of Rs. 2.50 crores was received from the Central Government for development of the aforesaid Institute in 2008. The present accused-applicant was Member Secretary of the Committee and one Hemant Kochar was the President and the aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the joint account of President and Secretary. After assessment of the work, it was found that expenditure to the tune of Rs. 70 lacs were incurred during the tenure of present accused-applicant, but the bills of Rs. 1,09,242/0 were not found on record nor the same are entered in the store book. 4. The incident relates back to 12.08.2011, on which date the FIR was lodged, and the applicant retired on 31.07.2011. Just four days before the date of his superannuation, the applicant was suspended. He filed Writ Petition no. 273 (S/B) of 2011, on which various orders were passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 12.03.2014, 21.05.2014 and finally on 18.11.2014. Vide order dated 18.11.2014, it was directed that the respondents shall initiate proper enquiry, in accordance with law, which shall be completed within a period of three months, in which the petitioner shall cooperate. Meanwhile, it was directed that the provisional pension, which was being given to the applicant, shall be given to him along with entire arrears. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not getting the provisional pension from February 2016, although the earlier arrears of gratuity have been paid to him. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that one Hemant Kochar was the President of the Committee and the present applicant was Secretary of said Committee. Money was withdrawn from the bank account by joint signatures of the President and the Secretary. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that one Hemant Kochar was the President of the Committee and the present applicant was Secretary of said Committee. Money was withdrawn from the bank account by joint signatures of the President and the Secretary. The present applicant, in his capacity as Secretary, did not hold any document and the remaining expenditures were incurred by the Chairman of the Committee, and not by the present applicant, and entire record was also with the President of the Committee. The allegation in the FIR is that bills to the tune of Rs. 1,09,242/- were not found on record and were not entered in the store book. The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2016. 6. Considering the above entire conspectus of things, a case of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. 7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. 8. Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the applicant today itself on payment of usual charges.