Allowed

Ram Bachan Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Superintedant of Police CBI ,Lko

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed by Ram Bachan Ram challenging rejection of earlier application by Special Judge CBI. Court granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount with specific conditions.

Ram Bachan Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintedant of Police… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 61 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Bachan Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Superintedant Of Police Cbi ,Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Bachan Ram with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No. R.C. 4(S)/2014/CBI/SCB, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/SCB, District Lucknow, till the conclusion of the trial after rejecting the anticipatory bail application by Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 4, Lucknow vide order dated 10.09.2021.

¶7

As per allegation of F.I.R. dated 25.02.2014, the alleged misappropriation of funds is related to the year of 2007-2009 and the applicant was working as an Assistant Development Officer at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the applicant was second signatory of the cheques. After cheques were signed by the Electoral Block Pramukh. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant of direct misappropriation of public funds rather the same was on engineers and other government officials.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court in writ Petition No. 1280 (MB) of 2021, the work pertaining to the misappropriation of funds in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) has been investigated by the C.B.I.

¶9

It is further submitted that the C.B.I. has not alleged in the charge-sheet that the applicant received any amount out of alleged transactions. The work was monitored by the Executive Engineers and Junior Engineers of R.E.S. Department. Applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order

¶10

dated 18.01.2022.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the coaccused, Shesh Nath Chauhan, who was the Block Development Officer at the relevant point of time, had been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10725 of 2021.

¶12

The other co-accused, Nand Lal Sonkar and Ram Bachan Ram, the then Assistant Development Officers, Shanti Devi, the then Block Pramukh and M/s. Vindhya Construction Company through its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Pandey, had also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.01.2022, 18.01.2022, 22.11.2021 and 28.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 46 of 2022, 61 of 2022, 13362 of 2021 and 9768 of 2021, respectively. The case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, who had been granted interim protection by this Court, in view thereof, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation.

¶14

Learned counsel for C.B.I. has already filed counter affidavit and opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶15

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

In case of arrest, the applicant, Ram Bachan Ram is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with

¶18

the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶22

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;

¶23

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶25

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 VPS

¶28

Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.08.25 10:33:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bachan Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Superintedant of Police CBI ,Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bachan Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Superintedant of Police CBI ,Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wali Mohammed and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Vishal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Udai Bhan Singh Vs in the Court of Special Judge Sc/St (P.a.) Act/Ii A.D.J. Sultanpur and Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. SP CBI Scb Hazratganj Lucknow

Shailendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Deepu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Ohter