Advocates:
['DUSHYANT MAINALI', '', 'GIRISH CHANDRA LAKHCHAURA', 'G A']

SL.

No

Date

Office Notes,

reports, orders or

proceedings or

directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BAI No. 1732 of 2021

Hon ’ble N.S. Dh an ik , J .

Mr.

G.C.

Lakhchaura

and

Mr.

Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the

applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief

Holder for the State.

Heard

learned

counsel

for

the

parties.

This is first bail application moved on

behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail

in connection with FIR No. 346 of 2012 for

the offence punishable under Section 409

IPC registered at P.S. Kashipur, District

Udham Singh Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant

submits that the applicant has falsely been

implicated in the instant crime; has no

criminal history in his credit and is

languishing in jail since 09.03.2021. He

also submits that there is no independent

witness against the applicant; that even if

an employee like applicant, who is an

employee

of

Cooperative

Society,

committed any crime and breach of trust,

then too, as per the definition of Section

409 IPC, if such offence committed by a

public servant or banker, merchant or

agent, it is punishable u/ s 409 IPC,

whereas it is not applicable on the person

who are neither public servant or banker;

that the Mini Bank was only a Cooperative

Scheme for farmers and not a Bank,

hence, it was renamed as Gramin Bachat

Kendra; that as per Section 21 IPC, the

applicant

does

not

come

within

the

definition of public servant; that even if

any person is public servant, as per

Cooperative Societies Act, then too for the

purpose of Section 409 IPC, he cannot be

held as a public servant as he does not

come under the definition of Section 21

IPC. Furthermore, learned counsel for the

applicant

placed

reliance

upon

the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of “St at e of Mah ar ash t r a vs. Lalj it

Raj sh i Sh ah an d Ot h er s reported in

2 0 0 0 ( 2 ) SCC 6 9 9 ” wherein it is held

that if any employee is not a public

servant, in terms of Section 21 IPC, then

Section 409 IPC will not be applicable

upon him.

He further submits that in case the

applicant grants bail, he will not misuse

the same.

Learned State Counsel opposed the

bail application and contended that the

applicant performing banking functions

comes under the definition of public

servant.

Considering

the

facts

and

circumstances of the case and considering

the law laid down by the learned counsel

for the applicant, without expressing any

opinion as to the final merits of the case

and, this Court is of the view that the

applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail,

on

executing

a

personal

bond

and

furnishing two reliable sureties, each of

like amount, to the satisfaction of Court

concerned.

( N.S. Dhan ik , J.)

10.03.2022

SB