Allowed

Gyan Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023ABAIL/13516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Gyan Prakash Singh in a case under S. 409 IPC. The court applied Supreme Court principles holding bail can extend till trial and granted relief with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties required; bail granted till conclusion of trial.

Gyan Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232530

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13516 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Gyan Prakash Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under section 409 IPC, P.S. Kachhwa, District Mirzapur.

¶8

While working as Senior Distribution Officer, the present applicant did not provide record/stock register concerning to Kachhwa Centre. An F.I.R. was lodged on 25.05.2022 and after investigation, now charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted.

¶10

It is further submitted that the main charge against the present applicant is that he did not provide the stock register/distribution register regarding Kachwa Centre but as a matter of fact, the applicant was never been posted at Kachhwa Centre. It is further submitted that in the case diary, the I.O. himself has submitted on certain places that no offence is made out against the present applicant and he even placed a report before Joint Director, Prosecution concerned to permit him to submit a closure report in this matter and in pursuation of that, a letter was written by Joint Director, Prosecution concerned to C.O. City, Mirzapur giving his opinion that the matter may be ended by way of submitting a final report. Subsequently, the I.O. on the basis of same evidence submitted a charge sheet against the present applicant. It is further

¶11

submitted that the prosecution story is highly suspicious and confusing and it is not clear that the matter relates to which period. It is also submitted that the applicant is a retired employee since 2010 and an F.I.R. was lodged after his retirement in 2022. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation is required from the present applicant and the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant was posted at Mirzapur during the period 2001-2006. During this period, he was Distribution Incharge of Kachhwa Centre also and he distributed a huge excess quantity of foodgrains in the Kachhwa Centre thereby causing a loss of more than Rs. 70 lakhs of public money. It is further submitted that during investigation, ample evidence has been collected against the present applicant. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in the present matter and now no custodial interrogation is required from the present applicant. It is next submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions court itself during the course of investigation vide order dated 01.02.2023 and the same was not misused by him. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after 12 years of his retirement.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding

¶17

anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶18

8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant 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 Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 Shivangi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyan Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P.

Jagdeesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rasida Bano Vs State of U.P.

Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vakil Yadav Vs State of U.P.