Dismissed

Vidyanand Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/314/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected in a corruption case involving embezzlement of public funds over 5 crore rupees. Court held that economic offences demand exercising bail power sparingly and it was not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused and dismissed.

Vidyanand Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181211

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 314 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Vidyanand Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Vidyanand Pathak seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2019 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District- Ballia.

¶8

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR which was lodged on 21.02.2019 is that the opposite party no.2 was posted as Prabhari Upnideshak (Genhu-Dhan) Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam Lucknow and applicant was Manadal Prabhari, of Mandal Azamgarh. It is alleged that applicant has committed irregularities in purchasing wheat at purchase centers Babuapur, Pihuatal and Kahinor and thereby total purchased wheat at different purchase centers did not reach at FCI godown. It is further alleged that much more money was paid to different agencies, than the purchased wheat. The named accused persons 10 in number including the present applicant in this way caused embezzlement of a huge amount of around 5 crore rupees and a serious and huge financial loss of public money was caused to the government department. Investigation started and now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the first information report are totally false, incorrect and first information report has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 just to save his skin for the embezzlement being done by the contractors and officials of FCI godown in handling/transportation of wheat from

¶10

different purchasing centers. It is further submitted that perusal of office orders dated 27.3.2015 and 30.06.2018 issued by Executive Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam Lucknow shows that applicant being Incharge of Division only had to supervise the work of purchase of wheat at different purchasing centers and to select the contractors for handling/transportation of wheat from different purchasing centers to FCI godown and he had nothing to do either to make payment to farmers/agencies or ensure the delivery of wheat at FCI godown, purchased from different centers and it is contractors and officials of FCI godown who had to ensure the delivery of purchased wheat at FCI godown.

¶11

It is further submitted that it is the duty of Center Incharge to purchase the grain and make payments to the farmers but it is very surprising that Center Incharge has neither been made accused in the first information report in question nor he has been suspended.

¶12

It is further submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that before submission of charge sheet an interim protection was granted by way of interim anticipatory bail to the present applicant by this Court vide order dated 8.1.2020 and the same has not been misused by him. It is further submitted that now after submission of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required. It is also submitted that although a department inquiry was initiated on 28.01.2019 but before even furnishing an explanation by the applicant the FIR in this matter was lodged. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that the present applicant in a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons caused a huge financial loss by embezzlement of public funds of an amount to a tune of more than 5 crore rupees. It is also submitted that even in the departmental inquiry the applicant has been found guilty and he has been terminated from the service. Ample evidence has been collected against him during course of investigation and he is not entitled for any mercy of this Court. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation in this matter is required as the appellant might have been indulged in other activities of embezzlement causing huge monitory loss to the government department.

¶14

In the present matter although bearing a responsible government post, the applicant in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused

¶15

persons caused a huge monitory loss to the government by way of embezzlement of public money of more than 5 crore rupees.

¶16

In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

This fact cannot lose sight that the offence involved in the present matter relates to the economic offence and in such matters, for the grant of anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned the Courts by holding that power to grant anticipatory bail being an extraordinary power, has to be exercised sparingly, more so, in cases of economic offences, such bail must be granted only in exceptional cases after application of mind in relation to nature and gravity of accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors and such power is to be invoked where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless [P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24].

¶20

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2023/Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vidyanand Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyanand Pathak 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

Anoop Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sanyukta @ Sanyojita Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hukum Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Riyaz Mohd @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Alisher Vs State of U.P.