Allowed

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023ABAIL/11424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a corruption and criminal trial. It noted the applicant's lack of antecedents and the pending departmental inquiry which exonerated him. Citing settled principles and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, the Court found a case made for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail limited to case Crime No. 410 of 2009; personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties; conditions to cooperate in inquiry and not tamper with witnesses.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:226427

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11424 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai,Jyoti Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2009, under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Gagaha, District- Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The first information report was lodged by a resident of village by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant and three co-accused persons have misused public funds of Rs.16,00,000/- by withdrawing the same from the account of Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation, it was found that applicant has expensed only an amount of Rs.2148/- against public work. During departmental inquiry, applicant was exonerated. The Investigating Officer has moved application for grant of sanction for prosecution but the

¶9

District Sugarcane Officer, Gorakhpur has refused to grant sanction. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Smt. Israwati Devi, who was the village Pradhan, and co-accused Ramashankar Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail. It was also shown that proceedings against co-accused Ram Lal have been quashed by this Court and proceedings in respect of coaccused Ramashankar Singh and Smt. Israwati Devi, have been stayed by this Court. It was also stated that investigation is pending since the year 2009. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused, Smt. Israwati Devi and Ramashankar Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for

¶13

the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Vinod Kumar Singh in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.11.2023/Aditya

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

State of Up Vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad

Dr Sanjay Kumr Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Sikarwar Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Vs Director Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and 7 Others

Rangnath Mishra and Another Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Another

Vedprakash Vs State of Up and Others