Dismissed

Suresh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020ABAIL/1112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, a retired Revenue Inspector, faced charges of under-valuation of cooperative cold storage land causing significant financial loss to the State. The court distinguished his role from a co-accused who had earlier obtained bail and found no case for granting relief given the gravity of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. number 1112 of 2020 was rejected.

Suresh Chandra Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1112 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Singh, learned A.G.A for the state and perused the material on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2011 under Sections 420, 109, 467, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (D) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, till the filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶7

In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that in the auction of the cooperative cold storage, all the accused persons, including the present applicant, have caused wrongful loss to Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,93,66,511/-. It is alleged that all the accused persons in collusion with each other have wrongly evaluated the value of cold storage at Rs.1,10,39,785/- and later sold it for Rs.1,17,51,000/- to Vimal Krishna Agarwal, the then MLA and State Cabinet Minister and to Smt. Urmila Gupta, who are also accused in the present case. The present applicant, the then Revenue Inspector, was responsible for the evaluation of the land of cold storage. It is alleged that the evaluation carried out by the present applicant was not done according to the prevailing circle rate meaning thereby that he has illegally in connivance with all other co-accused has under valued the land of cold storage.

¶8

It has been brought into the knowledge of this court that the coaccused Satish Chandra Srivastava has already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in same case crime number in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45681 of 2019 (Satish Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 1.11.2019.

¶9

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to reason that being Revenue Inspector he was the signing authority. He further contended that there is no complicity of

¶10

the applicant in the present case, neither any recovery of money has been shown from the applicant and that he has been named as an accused only on the basis of suspicion. He further contended that the cold storage was sold in 2005 and the instant FIR has been belatedly lodged in the year 2011 and till now no charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. He further states that the applicant has already retired in the year 2014 and is aged about 65 years. He further prayed for the anticipatory bail on the ground of parity that the co-accused Satish Chandra Srivastava has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also looking into the seriousness of the allegation as made in the F.I.R., gravity of offence and severity of the punishment and the facts as advanced by the learned A.G.A, no case for interference is made out.

¶13

Moreover, so far as the parity is concerned, from the perusal of material on record, the allegation against co-accused Satish Chandra Srivastava is that he has endorsed the valuation which was made by the committee constituted by the District Magistrate in respect of the assets of the cold storage and he has simply endorsed the said report. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he was under legal obligation for the evaluation of value of the land of cold storage and that he has not evaluated the value according to the prevailing circle rate and on account of under valuation the State Exchequer suffered a wrongful loss to a tune of about Rs.1.93 crore. The applicant in connivance with all other co-accused has under valued the land of cold storage and thereafter submitted his report to the Tehsildar, who then forwarded the said valuation report to co-accused Satish Chandra Srivastava for endorsement.

¶14

In view of the above, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of other co-accused Satish Chandra Srivastava.

¶15

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Vikas

Suresh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aamir Faheem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nisha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Wasid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahboob Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another