Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 657 (ALL)

Chandrashekhar Prasad v. State of U. P.

2024-03-01

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bhatni, District- Deoria, during pendency of trial. 3. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 04.06.2021 when the informant went to his sister's place, he met one Sanjay. He was told by Sanjay that his nephew Chandra Shekhar Prasad is working in FCI Department and other persons are also required there in the department as employees. On the aforesaid, informant's brother-in-law namely Ram Kishan requested Sanjay to talk to Chandra Shekhar Prasad (nephew of Sanjay) to get few family members appointed in the same. On his request, when Sanjay managed a conversation of the informant with Chandra Shekhar Prasad, he was informed that Rs. 3,50,000/- per person will be required for the appointment in the FCI Department. The informant's brother-in-law requested for getting his son and nephew appointed and the informant requested for appointment of his son. Appointment letters were sent on the mobile of the aforesaid persons, seeing which the informant and his brother-in-law were asked to deposit some amount in the account no. 38445012703. The informant Santosh Kumar deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the aforesaid account on 25.06.2021. 4. Afterwards, the informant came to know that the aforesaid account was in the name of one Abhishek Kumar. Coming to know about the aforesaid account being of Abhishek Kumar, he had a talk with Chandra Shekhar Prasad who gave his PNB Account No. 2147000100191886 and requested the informant to deposit the amount in the aforesaid PNB account, after which Rs. 2,00,000/- were deposited by the informant on 02.07.2021. He was asked to take the print out of the appointment letters as sent on the mobile and come alongwith the applicant Chandra Shekhar Prasad for further steps to be taken for the appointment of the children. 2,00,000/- were deposited by the informant on 02.07.2021. He was asked to take the print out of the appointment letters as sent on the mobile and come alongwith the applicant Chandra Shekhar Prasad for further steps to be taken for the appointment of the children. Chandra Shekhar Prasad came alongwith co-accused Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and took alongwith them the son of the informant and the son and nephew of the informant's brother-in- law in a four wheeler vehicle and went to Chapra (Bihar) for their appointment in the FCI Department. Only three persons i.e. the son of the informant and the nephew and son of the informant's brother- in-law were kept in private room. They stayed in the said room till 25 days but neither they were given appointment nor were taken to any government office. On having a conversation with the applicant Chandra Shekhar Prasad, they were told to go back to their residence and as soon as verification of the appointment is done, they will be informed about the same. On the aforesaid assurance, the children came back to their house. Till date neither they have been appointed in the department nor the money has been returned, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant and two named accused i.e. Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and Abhishek Kumar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for the same. Though, he received the amount on 02.07.2021 but the same has been deposited in the account of one Om Prakash Pandey at the instance of Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and upon the direction of the informant. He has placed the statement of account on page no. 57 of the bail application from where it is evident that on 02.07.2021, Rs. 5,50,000/- have been transferred to the account of Om Prakash Pandey. He further submits that even he is a victim of the fraud as played by the other co-accused persons. No recovery of any amount has been made from the applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant which could prove that the forged appointment letters have been prepared by the applicant. He further submits that even he is a victim of the fraud as played by the other co-accused persons. No recovery of any amount has been made from the applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant which could prove that the forged appointment letters have been prepared by the applicant. He further submits that informant's son was never examined during the examination. 6. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned AGA for the State on the other hand submits that it is an organized crime in which applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have cheated the informant as well as his brother-in-law by accepting the money under the garb of providing job. From the version of the FIR itself, it is clear that the forged appointment letters have been sent from the mobile phone of the applicant to that of the informant's. The statement of account as placed by learned counsel for the applicant showing that the amount as received by the applicant has been transferred in the account of one Om Prakash Pandey at the insistence of informant and the co-accused Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar cannot prove the innocence of the applicant, as in the statement of account the name of Om Prakash Pandey has been written by pen, so it cannot be said as to whether the amount has actually been transferred in the account of Om Prakash Pandey or not, as usually in the present scenario, when the computerized statement of account is being given, the name of the account holder from whom the money is debited or credited to is mentioned and the account number is also mentioned in the same. He further submits that there is no delay in the FIR as the incident started from the year 2021 and as assurance was given that after verification of the appointment, the informant shall be communicated about the same. Believing the assurance given by the accused persons, the informant waited for the appointment and when no appointment letter was given nor the money was returned, the present FIR was lodged. 7. This court has meticulously examined the contentions put forth by both learned counsels and has perused the material on record. Believing the assurance given by the accused persons, the informant waited for the appointment and when no appointment letter was given nor the money was returned, the present FIR was lodged. 7. This court has meticulously examined the contentions put forth by both learned counsels and has perused the material on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bhatni, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 8. The allegations in the FIR paint a picture of calculated deception and manipulation perpetrated by the applicant along with his co-accused. It is alleged that they exploited the trust of the informant and his brother-in-law by promising employment opportunities in the FCI Department in exchange for substantial sums of money. Despite receiving significant sums, the promised appointments never materialized, leaving the victims both financially and emotionally aggrieved. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. However, the court notes that the allegations against the applicant are not unsubstantiated. The FIR alleges a well-coordinated scheme involving the applicant and his co-accused to defraud the victims. Moreover, the contention regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is unpersuasive, as the delay can be reasonably explained by the victims' belief in the false assurances given by the accused regarding the pending verification process. 10. The defense further argues that the applicant did not directly get benefit from the fraudulent transactions and that the money received was subsequently transferred to another individual. However, this assertion fails to exonerate the applicant from his alleged involvement in the scam. The mere transfer of funds does not absolve him of responsibility, especially considering the organized nature of the crime and the active role attributed to him in facilitating the deceitful transactions. 11. Additionally, the contention regarding the absence of incriminating evidence directly linking the applicant to the fabrication of appointment letters is not conclusive at this stage of the proceedings. The investigation is ongoing, and further evidence may yet come to light. 12. In addition to the foregoing considerations, it is imperative to underscore the broader societal implications inherent in cases of fraudulent promises of employment. The investigation is ongoing, and further evidence may yet come to light. 12. In addition to the foregoing considerations, it is imperative to underscore the broader societal implications inherent in cases of fraudulent promises of employment. The court wishes to emphasize the importance of sensitizing individuals, particularly students and job seekers, to the fundamental principle that legitimate employment opportunities are attained solely through merit and diligent effort. It is incumbent upon the state to uphold the integrity of the recruitment process and to take stringent measures against those who seek to exploit the aspirations of innocent individuals through fraudulent means. 13. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that the consequences of falling prey to such fraudulent schemes extend far beyond mere financial loss. Individuals who are misled into parting with their hard-earned money in exchange for false promises of employment often endure profound emotional distress, shattered hopes, and a sense of betrayal. Moreover, the societal repercussions can be equally damaging, as victims may find themselves ostracized and stigmatized, their reputations tarnished, and their social standing compromised. 14. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders, including educational institutions, government agencies, civil society organizations, and the media, to collaborate in disseminating accurate information and fostering a culture of integrity and resilience. Comprehensive education and awareness campaigns must be developed to empower individuals with the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to recognize and resist fraudulent schemes. Moreover, efforts should be made to provide alternative avenues for career development and skill enhancement, thereby reducing the vulnerability of individuals to exploitation. 15. Ultimately, the goal must be to create an environment where the pursuit of professional opportunities is guided by principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct. By instilling these values in future generations and holding accountable those who seek to subvert them, we can uphold the dignity and aspirations of all individuals and ensure the integrity of our institutions and society as a whole. 16. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that releasing the applicant on bail at this juncture would not be in the interest of justice. The gravity of the offenses, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the potential risk of re-offending militate against granting bail. 17. Therefore, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, is hereby denied/rejected. 18. The gravity of the offenses, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the potential risk of re-offending militate against granting bail. 17. Therefore, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, is hereby denied/rejected. 18. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the present bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. 19. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings in accordance with law. 20. Order passed accordingly.