Allowed

Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023/3289/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the second bail application of a subordinate government clerk accused of forgery and corruption. Relying on the co-accused's grant of bail and the applicant's criminal history, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses and mandatory appearance in court.

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3289 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I./A.C.B. and perused the records.

¶6

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant seeking his release on bail in Criminal Case No.815 of 2022 (CBI Vs. Roop Singh Yadav & Others), under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with substantive offences thereof arising out of Crime No. RC0062017A0026, registered with CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow and pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI, West, Lucknow. The first bail application has been rejected by this Court by means of order dated 29.04.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4319 of 2021.

¶7

It is recorded in the rejection order that the applicant was working as a Junior Assistant/Clerk in the Irrigation Department. The charge-sheet narrates that the co-accused Roop Singh Yaday, who was holding the charge of Superintending Engineer had directed the applicant, who is junior in the office, to show the sale of tender documents of M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. and put up forged papers on its behalf by obtaining photocopies from the earlier tenders submitted by Patel Engineering Ltd. for other work.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶9

The co-accused Roop Singh Yadav, who was holding the post of Superintending Engineer and under whose directions the applicant is said to have acted, has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of order dated 20.02.2023, passed in SLP (Crl.) No.12932 of 2022.

¶10

The learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the co-accused who was holding a higher position, under whose dictates the applicant is said to have acted has already been enlarged on bail; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.11.2020 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant-Raj Kumar Yadav be released on bail in Criminal Case No.815 of 2022 (CBI Vs. Roop Singh Yadav & Others), under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with substantive offences thereof arisen out of Crime No. RC0062017A0026, registered with CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow and pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI, West, Lucknow on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned,

¶14

subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I / Acb, Lko

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

Akash Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rambali Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Government Lucknow

Chandan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Murat Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Lal Ji @ Chotkau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others