Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/12523/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An amendment application seeking recall of a dismissed anticipatory bail application was considered. The court allowed the recall, permitting necessary amendments, and subsequently granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing corruption charges, directing appearance within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.12.2022 recalled; amendment in memo permitted; applicant admitted on anticipatory bail on specific conditions.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12523 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Amendment Application No. 03 of 2023

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This application seeks recall of the order dated 19.12.2022, dismissing the earlier amendment application.

¶8

Cause shown seem to be germane.

¶9

Allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2022 is hereby recalled and the learned counsel for the accused-applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment in memo of the application.

¶10

Memo

¶11

Heard and perused the entire file.

¶12

By way of this application under Section 438 CrPC, the accused-applicant has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest pursuant to FIR/Crime No.0130 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 204 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, lodged at Police Station Mursan, District Hathras (Mahamayanagar).

¶13

The accused-applicant was posted as In-charge District Inspector of Schools of District Hathras at the relevant time; the accused-applicant, being head of the Committee, had recommended disbursement of the scholarship to the students amounting to Rs. 73 Lakhs to the S.D. Educational Institute, Jalesar Road, Hathras (hereinafter referred to as the "Institute"). It is alleged that the said amount was disbursed by the Social Welfare Department to the Institute, however, the amount was not disbursed to the students studying in the Institute, but the same was misappropriated by the Principle and Management of the Institute in connivance with the present accused-applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the said amount of Rs. 73 Lakhs has been deposited back by the Management of the Institute; Manager, Principal and Accountant had approached this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 CrPC, and this Court has protected them. It is further submitted that except for the allegation that the accused-applicant was involved in misappropriation of Rs. 73 Lakhs, which was disbursed to the Institute, there is no evidence to suggest that the accusedapplicant had received any amount from the said amount of Rs. 73 Lakhs. It is further submitted that allegation is general in nature and the accused-applicant has cooperated with the investigation and charge-sheet has already been filed against the co-accused. The prosecuting agency has sought sanction from the Government and sanction is still awaited against the accused-applicant. It is further submitted that there is no chance for the accused-applicant to tamper with the evidence or influence any witness or flee from the course of justice. It is further submitted that two co-accused, namely, Manpal Singh and Rajeshwar Singh, who are part of the Committee, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and their bail orders have been placed on record.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the accused-applicant is admitted on anticipatory bail. He is directed to appear before the learned trial Court within seven days from today and if he does so, he shall be released on bail on his filing bail bond and two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, if not already filed, on the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice, and other conditions, which may be desirable by the learned trial Court:-

¶16

(i) the applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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;

¶17

(ii). the applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶19

(iv) the applicant(s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of

¶20

the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶21

[D.K.SINGH, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar 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

Constable Anand Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Das Alias Ramji Lal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhudev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another