Dismissed

Ram Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2021ABAIL/373/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects an anticipatory bail application filed by Ram Sagar Yadav, accused of misappropriating public funds as a bank manager. The court held that the pendency of departmental proceedings or a stay on recovery does not justify anticipatory bail, especially where criminal investigation details were unclear.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is rejected; interim anticipatory bail granted previously is cancelled.

Ram Sagar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 373 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sagar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Upadhyay,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ram Sagar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2017, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kutubsher, DistrictSaharanpur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant that applicant was employed as Branch Manager of District Co-operative Bank,Limited ,Saharanpur and after due police inquiry First Information Report has been lodged against him. The investigating officer has found that the charge nos. 1 to 62 against the applicant regarding misappropriation of Rs.58,76,068/- has been found to be correct. Applicant has deposited Rs. 4,80,466/-only.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in pursuance of the inquiry report dated 19.1.2016 demand notice dated 24.3.2017 was issued against the applicant directing him to deposit Rs. 15,77,063/- with 12 % interest and 1%

¶11

penalty. During the pendency of departmental proceedings criminal proceedings were initiated by lodging First Information Report dated 15.7.2017.The applicant has already approached Co-operative Tribunal against the order of surcharge dated 3.2.2018.Since the dispute is subjudice before the Co-operative Tribunal,there is no justification for arresting the applicant till such proceedings are finally concluded. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that favourable interim order has been passed in favour of the applicant by the tribunal and has tried to place before the court some papers which are not part of any affidavit..Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted. After hearing the rival contentions this court finds that there are clear allegations of misappropriation of public money against the applicant. Merely on the basis of stay of recovery proceedings the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail against arrest in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 15.7.2017. Despite time granted no counter affidavit has been filed therefore it is not clear whether police investigation has been completed or not and whether any police report has been submitted or not. Both the proceedings, departmental and criminal, operate in different fields hence the arguments made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant are misconceived.Accordingly this anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶13

Interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by the order dated 18.1.2021 is cancelled.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.

Ram Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and and Another

Raghvendra Singh Vs State of Up

Ankit Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Bahadur @ Master Ji and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kaleem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another