Dismissed

Rajnish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023ABAIL/452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought protection against arrest in a corruption and cheating conspiracy case involving loss to Power Grid Corporation. The High Court rejected the application citing sufficient evidence and the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; no ground to enlarge accused found.

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

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 452 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajnish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhendu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

1. Present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed apprehending arrest by the accused-applicant in FIR No.RC1202018A000936/2018: Special Case No.01 of 2021 under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, 9, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Ghaziabad.

¶6

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a preliminary enquiry PE1202018A0001 on a written complaint of Chief Vigilance Officer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. One Sanjay Kumar, Senior Engineer Power Grid Corporation Limited, Saharanpur in collusion with some farmers and other unknown persons/officials, released excess amounts of compensation to various farmers and received kickbacks amount in the bank accounts of his relatives. The accused-applicant is partner of one Azad Singh, brother of said Sanjay Kumar. It is alleged that Sanjay Kumar in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with the co-accused had misappropriated and caused lost to the Government to the extent of Rs.92,38,670/-.

¶7

3. During the course of investigation, name of the accused-applicant has come in commission of the offence. It is alleged that it was a circuit by which kickback amount was rerouted to the account of the wife of said Sanjay Kumar. The accused-applicant has received the amount of Rs.13,45,000/- of the said kickback account, which has been transferred.

¶8

4. Considering the nature of offence, involvement of the accusedapplicant in the commission of the offence and during the course of investigation enough evidence has been collected against the accused-

¶9

applicant, I do not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail. Thus this application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected .

¶10

Order Date :- 16.1.2023 prateek

¶11

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajnish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akchay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aley Hasan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Aley Hasan Khan Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.