Dismissed

Dhanraj Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2022ABAIL/2705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. moved by a retired government servant accused of facilitating the il1egal transfer of public funds through fraudulent cancellation and registration of digital signatures. The court held that the applicant was the main accused and lacked sufficient grounds for protection.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected. observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of this anticipatory bail application and the same shall not be construed as an opinion o

Dhanraj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2705 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dhanraj Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Prabhat Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant - Dhanraj Patel in Case Crime No.0514 of 2021, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is an innocent person, he has committed no offence as claimed by the prosecution and the first information report has been lodged on the basis of fabricated and concocted facts while the applicant has not done any wrong as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant at the relevant point of time was not present at the place where the crime is alleged to have been committed as he was posted at that point of time in Pratapgarh.

¶9

It is also submitted that allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he has approved the cancellation and registration of DSC of Shri Arun Kumar Nigam and Smt. Ruchi Verma in order to facilitate the syphoning of an amount to the tune of Rs. 15,77,963/- to different persons illegally and thereby has caused huge loss to the public exchequer. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant could not be believed and in fact the DSC of the applicant (Dongle) was left at his earlier place of posting at Kalan District Shahjahanpur and it appears that the same has been misused by some other persons, no amount has been taken by the applicant even as per the allegation of the FIR. The applicant is a retired government servant, he is ready to cooperate in the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer is trying hard to apprehend the

¶10

applicant and thus, the protection from arrest be granted.

¶11

It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused- Arun Kumar Nigam has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.1.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18932 of 2022 as well as co-accused Devi Lal Maurya and Keshari Nanda have also been granted regular bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 9.2.2022 and 2.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 50258 of 2021 and 52921 of 2021.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State, however, submits that the applicant, namely, Dhanraj Patel is the main accused of the offence as he was instrumental in approving the cancellation and registration of the DSC of Arun Kumar Nigam and Smt. Ruchi Verma and therefore has facilitated the transfer of the government fund to the tune of Rs. 15,77,963/- in the account of different persons and therefore he is the main accused of the crime and therefore he is not entitled to be provided any protection.

¶13

It is also submitted that the charge sheet in this case has already been filed and now there is no apprehension that the applicant may be arrested by the Investigating Agency.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that allegations of the FIR are to the tune that it was the applicant who had approved the cancellation and registration of the DSC of Shri Arun Kumar Nigam and Smt. Ruchi Verma and has approved the registration of a new Dongle which has been allegedly used in transferring of the funds of Gram Panchayat Rafiabad Kalan to different persons and therefore has caused a loss of public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 15,77,963/-. The applicant appears to be the main accused and it appears that it was the act of the applicant which has resulted in syphoning of huge public money. The applicant could also not get the benefit of regular bail granted to the other co-accused persons as well as anticipatory bail granted to one Arun Kumar Nigam as the role of co-accused Arun Kumar Nigam is entirely different as the allegation against him are to the tune that his dongle has been used in commission of the crime, registration and cancellation of which has been approved by the instant applicant. It is also stated on behalf of the State that charge sheet has also been submitted, though mere filing of the charge sheet could not be a hurdle in considering the prayer of anticipatory bail as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 as well as in Gurbaksha Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565, but having regard to the role

¶15

played by the applicant in commission of crime this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and thus the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected .

¶16

The observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of this anticipatory bail application and the same shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.4.2022 Muk

¶18

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.12 10:52:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhanraj Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Junaid Kamal @ Junna Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another