Allowed

Raja Ram Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022BAIL/17459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jeti Court allowed bail application for applicant Raja Ram Maurya charged with corruption. Court noted non-inclusion in FIR, retirement status, and lack of tampering risk, releasing him on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Raja Ram Maurya on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

Raja Ram Maurya Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17459 of 2022 Applicant :- Raja Ram Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶4

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Raja Ram Maurya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 302 of 2007, under Sections 193, 197, 218, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further argued that the implication of the applicant in the present matter as surfaced during investigation only without any credible and cogent evidence after which charge-sheet No.7E/07 dated 17.10.2019 has been filed against the applicant of which cognizance was taken by the concerned Court by the order dated 14.12.2020 and the applicant was summoned. It is argued that the allegations in the present case are with regard to corruption and financial irregularities committed in the construction work undertaken by the P.W.D. during the year 1998-1999 to 200-2003 after which the first information report was lodged on 11.10.2007 against 19 named persons. The allegations insofar as applicant are concerned are totally vague and without any evidence. The applicant retired from his services in the year 31.1.2018 after attaining the age of supperannuation. It is argued that during the pendency of investigation the applicant filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20886 of 2019 (Raja Ram Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others) which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 12.9.2019 in which he was extended the benefit of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24416 of 2017 (Prabhunath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others). It is argued that the applicant cooperated during the investigation and there is no allegation of

¶6

his either tampering with evidence or non-cooperation therein. It is further argued that the applicant was posted as Divisional Accountant in the Public Works Department. There was a departmental enquiry insofar as co-accused was concerned which concluded and was with regard to the present matter itself, in which it was opined that there was no interpolation of documents but was only a clerical error. It is argued that coaccused Prakash Chandra Srivastava who was the Executive Engineer in the department was granted bail by the order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Varanasi. The copy of which is Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is argued that as such the applicant who is in jail since 4.4.2022 be released on bail.

¶7

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. In the investigation it was discovered that forged and fabricated documents were filed due to which there has been financial irregularities. It is argued that the applicant in conspiracy with other accused persons violated the code of conduct of being a government servant and there was fabrication of documents due to which work of Rs.4,77,785/- out of Rs.9,40,000/- was done and the balance amount of Rs.4,62,215/- was shown falsely in Birna Sampark Marg, Chandauli due to which the accused persons had wrongful gain. It is argued that as such the bail application shall be dismissed.

¶8

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the first information report. His implication has come during investigation. His arrest was stayed by Division Bench of this Court during investigation. Charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted of which the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned him. He has retired from his services in the year 2018. Co-accused Prakash Chandra Srivastava and Surya Pratap Mishra have been granted bail by the trial court and insofar as sanction of prosecution of co-accused Hira Ram and Gauri Shanker Dubey is concerned the same has been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court.

¶9

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Raja Ram Maurya , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶11

the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

The bail application is allowed .

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 8.8.2022/ Shiv

¶22

Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.08.11 16:57:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raja Ram Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram Maurya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Hemdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pritanshu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagat Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Raghav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahuri Alias Kanishak Pal Singh Vs State