Allowed

Ram Tirth Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023ABAIL/4394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Ram Tirth Yadav in a corruption and cheating case. The court directed him to appear before the trial court within five days to furnish a bond and satisfy conditions regarding payment of loss, attending hearings, and not seeking adjournments without cause.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; admitted on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding attendance and financial liability.

Ram Tirth Yadav 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. - 4394 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Tirth Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Jayendra Singh,Pratik J. Nagar,Ram Pal Singh,Sr. Advocate (J. Nagar) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State, and gone through the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in Case Crime No. 418 of 2016 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Ganj, District- Rampur.

¶8

As per the FIR, the Government issued order dated 27th June, 2016 for registration of the FIR and investigating the offence against the present applicant, who was posted as Deputy Director (Construction), Mandi Parishad, Rampur. During the open inquiry, it was found that the accused-applicant executed a work contract with Shri Pawan Kumar, the Contractor for construction of road work from Rajpur to Hiran Kheda Bangali Colony to Khajuria and Gajraula to Gadau. For the said work, on two stamp papers of Rs. 1500/- each, Rs. 20,000-20,000 was deposited as security amount. The permission for the said work was taken from the Chief Engineer, Lucknow. The construction work was started from 27th July, 1995 and the Contractor was directed to complete the work within a period of four months.

¶9

It was alleged that without completion of the work, the payments were made in criminal conspiracy of the accusedapplicant and other co-accused and total loss to the government exchequer was to the extent of Rs. 11,68,864/-.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has paid his share of the loss and remaining has been recovered from the other co-accused. He further stated that if any amount is due and payable, the accused-applicant is ready to pay the same.

¶11

Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned Additional Government Advocate has no instruction regarding that how much amount is payable by the accused-applicant and whether he has paid entire amount or not.

¶12

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶13

The offence was allegedly committed in the year 1995 for which the FIR came to be registered in the year 2016 and the Investigating Agency after completing the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet and other co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court with a direction that the learned Trial Court will try to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the accused-applicant is entitled to be admitted on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is also allowed and it is directed that applicant Ram Tirth Yadav shall appear before the trial Court within five days from today and furnish a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶16

amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. On furnishing personal bond and sureties, the applicant Ram Tirth Yadav shall be admitted on bail in Case Crime No. 418 of 2016 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Ganj, District- Rampur, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) That the accused-applicant shall pay any amount, which is due and payable, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice in that regard shall be issued by the Government/Mandi Parishad.

¶18

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶22

framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Shafique

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Tirth Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Tirth Yadav 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

Lalit K. Ganatra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durga Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Rajnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Bhushan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others