Allowed

Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Director Directorate of Enforcement Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023/762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, a retired District Tuberculosis Officer, was accused of assisting a co-accused in a financial fraud under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court granted bail on a personal bond with sureties and imposed standard conditions regarding passport surrender and cooperation with invest

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding passport surrender and cooperation with law enforcement.

Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta Vs Union of India Thru… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 762 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Director Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Dayal,Ankit Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate and perused the record.

¶8

By means of instant application, the applicant Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta is seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 63/2022, Crime No:-ECIR/10/PMLA/LZO/2012, under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station- Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zonal Office: District Lucknow.

¶9

The Enforcement Directorate has filed a Complaint on 13.08.2021 against 14 named accused persons, including the applicant. The aforesaid case has been registered regarding some material having been procured under National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred as NRHM) Scheme on inflated rates. So far as the applicant is concerned, the complaint states that he was working as District Tuberculosis Officer, Maharajganj and he was posted at Deoria, Maharajganj. The complaint states that the applicant had assisted Dr. A.K. Upadhayay in preparation of indents and the allegations against

¶10

Dr. A.K. Upadhayay is that he had awarded work Orders/indents for procuring the medicines by entering into criminal conspiracy by other accused persons and he spent funds without following the prescribed guidelines and rules and purchased the medicines fraudulently.

¶11

It has been stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application that the applicant is innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history except for the predicate offence, in which the applicant has already been granted bail by means of order dated 20.03.2015 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5515 of 2015.

¶12

It has further been stated in the affidavit that one of the coaccused person Dr. Rameshwar Singh, who was a Deputy Chief Medical Officer has been granted anticipatory bail by means of order dated 28.02.2023 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 524 of 2023.

¶13

Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the E.D has vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail and he has submitted that the applicant has actively assisted co-accused in commission of offence and he has caused loss to the public exchequer.

¶14

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant was holding the post of District Tuberculosis Officer and he has retired way back and presently he is aged about 70 years. The allegation against the applicant is of assisting the co-accused Dr. A.K. Upadhayay and prima facie there is no allegation of commission of any act by the applicant himself, which may make out an offence. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and coupled with the fact that one of the co-

¶15

accused has been granted anticipatory bail and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta , be released Complaint Case No. 63/2022, Crime No.-ECIR/10/PMLA/LZO/2012 under Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zonal Office: District Lucknow on bail, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

(iii) that the applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court;

¶21

(iv) that the applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court;

¶22

(v) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶23

(vi) that it is directed that the trial may be concluded in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of this order, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this court while considering or deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant;

¶24

(vii) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶25

(viii) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶26

(ix) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Preeti.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Director Directorate of Enforcement Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ramashankar Prasad Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Director Directorate of Enforcement Lko. 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

Abdul Salam Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, District Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Jhabbu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Abhimanyu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Chandra Pakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt.

Shiv Shankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.