Allowed

Ram Rekha Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2022BAIL/27593/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for a superannuated government employee facing prosecution under Section 409 IPC. The court held that the FIR was based on an enquiry report recommending only administrative penalties like salary stoppage and recovery, lacking specific allegations of criminal offences, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and adhering to specific conditions regarding tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Ram Rekha Singh Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27593 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Rekha Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Harsh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harsh Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2020, under Sections 409 IPC, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 19.3.2021 lodged by the Block Development Officer, Rasara, Ballia stating that by means of an office memorandum dated 23.10.2019, one increment in salary of the applicant has been stopped permanently and a sum of Rs.3,99,940/- has been ordered to be recovered from him. In view of the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it has been decided to lodge an FIR against the applicant under relevant sections.

¶8

Initially, a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the applicant and his services were ordered to be terminated by means of order dated 1.2.2012. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ A No.17459 of 2012 before this Court which was allowed by the judgment dated 6.9.2014 wherein this Court recorded that the enquiry proceeding had been conducted in a casual manner, with a closed mind, no witnesses were examined and no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant. Subsequently, a fresh enquiry was conducted against the applicant and a copy of the enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit wherein it has been recommended that one increment of the applicant be stopped with permanent effect and recovery of Rs.27,70,396.60/- be made from this salary.

¶9

5.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been

¶10

falsely implicated in the present case. In paragraph nos.10 and 19 of the affidavit it has been stated that on the basis of the earlier enquiry report an FIR dated 23.3.2007 bearing case crime no.30 of 2007 under Section 407, 468, 419, 420, 417, 416, 409, 120B IPC, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia has been registered against the applicant and 15 other persons. On the basis of the subsequent enquiry report dated 23.10.2019 two different FIRs have been lodged against the applicant on 18.3.2020 and 19.3.2020 bearing case crime nos.51 and 55 of 2020 respectively under Sections 409 IPC on the basis of similar allegations.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the basis of the instruction and submitted that the applicant has been involved in six other criminal cases apart from the present case.

¶12

A perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR indicates that it refers to the enquiry report dated 23.10.2019 only and it does not contain a narration of commission of any offence by the applicant.

¶13

The findings of the enquiry report dated 23.10.2019 merely recommend infliction of a punishment of stoppage of one increment and recovery of certain amount from the applicant and it does not make any mention of commission of an offence by the applicant and recommendation for lodging of FIR against him.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is already superannuated and he is not in a position to influence the witnesses or to temper with the evidence of the case; that the FIR does not contain any specific allegation of commission of any act by the applicant which may amount to any offence; that it merely refers to an enquiry report dated 23.10.2019 which recommends imposition of a penalty of stoppage of one increment and regarding sum of amount only which does not contain any recommendation of lodging of FIR, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.

¶16

In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Ram Rekha Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2020, under Sections 409 IPC, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

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

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.10.2022 Deepika

¶24

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.10.12 16:48:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Rekha Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Rekha Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj @ Karu Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gurmehar Singh Chima Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtaruzzaman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Basant Lal Vs State of U.P.