Dismissed

Veer Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023ABAIL/246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with an anticipatory bail application filed by Veer Pal Singh in a CBI case concerning a land scam involving the Yamuna Expressway. The High Court examined the prosecution allegations and concluded that given the serious nature of the fraud, the case was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected, and the accused was not granted bail.

Veer Pal Singh 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. - 246 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Veer Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard and gone through the entire file.

¶6

By way of this application under Section 438 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest pursuant to FIR No.RC1202019A0008 dated 24.12.2019 lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the "CBI"), under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 13(1(c) and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") at ACB/CBI, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Initially, the said FIR came to be registered with the U.P. Police vide Case Crime No.0421 of 2018 at Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act; the charge-sheet was filed against coaccused, P.C. Gupta; the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Court No. 2, Meerut on 18.09.2018 found the role of many more persons during the course of the inquiry/trial; thereafter, chargesheets were filed against co-accused, Ranveer Singh, Brajesh Kumar, Gaurav, Manoj, Anil, Jugesh, Satendeer Chouhan, Satendra, Sanjeev Kumar, Ramesh Bansal and Sonia Bansal; thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2018 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and subsequent Gazette Notification issued by DoPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, New-Delhi dated 14.10.2019, FIR No.0421 of 2018 got transferred to the CBI and a Regular Case No.RC1202019A008 had been registered on 24.12.2019, FIR of which vide Case Crime No.0421 of 2018 was registered at Police Station Kasna, District Gaudam Budh Nagar.

¶8

The case relates to land scam of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "YEIDA"). The investigation carried out by the CBI revealed that the YEIDA, which was responsible for implementing Yamuna Expressway Project and allied development in the

¶9

region, had taken a policy decision during the year 2014-2016, therefore, a large chunk of land of nearby village of the YEIDA was purchased. The total consideration was of Rs. 96,33,65,575/-.

¶10

Allegation against the accused is that vide order dated 01.10.2013 co-accused, P.C. Gupta, the Chief Executive Offier (CEO) had constituted a Committee for identification of 7% residential land to be awarded against land used in Agra, Mathura, Aligarh and Hathras districts for Yamuna Expressway. Co-accused-, OSD to the said P.C. Gupta was heading the Committee and four other persons, who were Tehsilder, Ranveer Singh, Tehsildar, Suresh Chand Sharma, Manager (Project) Atul Kumar and in his absence Pati Ram and Manager (Planning) Brajesh Kumar.

¶11

The CBI, during the course of investigation, found that out of the 56.481 hectare land so purchased by YEIDA, approximately 41 hectare land had been purchased by 19 persons, who were related/associated/allied to the officers of the YEIDA, namely, P.C. Gupta, V.P. Singh, Suresh Chand Sharma and Ranveer Singh), who had purchased the land just 2-3 months back from local farmers on much lesser rates and sold the same to YEIDA on much higher rates. A comparative chart of the purchased land and the sold land has been mentioned in the charge-sheet.

¶12

The CBI had concluded the investigation and had submitted charge-sheet against the accused, including the present accusedapplicant, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 13(1(c) and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and substantive offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶13

Considering the serious allegations and the fraud allegedly played by the accused-applicant and co-accused, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the accusedapplicant on anticipatory bail.

¶14

REJECTED.

¶15

[D.K.SINGH, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 MVS/-

¶17

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

Veer Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Pal Singh 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

Anand Swarup Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kehar Singh and Others Vs State

Mokhtar Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Constable Anand Prakash Vs State of U.P.

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

State of U.P. Vs Sri Niwas Garg and Another