Dismissed

Nand Kishor Nayak v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023ABAIL/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged misappropriation of public funds by a Technical Assistant. The court held the applicant was not a fit case for bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected and refused.

What the court decided

Nand Kishor Nayak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133046

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 486 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nand Kishor Nayak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Gaurav Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Nand Kishor Nayak seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station, Sirsakalar, District Jalaun.

¶7

Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava and Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The F.I.R. of the case contains many allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of public fund against the present accused applicant, who was working as Technical Assistant in Gram Panchayat, Damras along with other accused persons including the Gram Pradhan, Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Rozgar Sewak etc. in the work pertaining to the development of the village and word done under the MGNREGA Scheme. An inquiry was conducted by Sri Harendra Singh, Assistant Development Officer and Sri Mahendra Kumar, Junior Engineer on 20.9.2022 and after finding the allegations true and correct, an F.I.R. against the accused applicant along with other accused persons was lodged on 15.10.2022 by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Program Officer / B.D.O., Maheba, Jalaun and investigation started.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the 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. He has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that in the light of the allegations levelled against the applicant, a three members Inquiry Committee consisting of District Garden Officer, Executive Engineer, PWD and B.D.O., Maheba was constituted under orders of the District Magistrate and in the inquiry made by the aforesaid Committee, it was found that no financial irregularity was made in the matter and the construction of CC Roads was also found complete. It is further submitted that no financial irregularity or embezzlement of public money has been made by the applicant. Applicant is

¶10

cooperating with the investigation. He has no criminal history to his credit and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail in the matter.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that ample evidence has been collected during the course of investigation in respect of misappropriation of public fund and embezzlement made by the accused applicant in connivance with other accused persons. It is further submitted that even in the three members Inquiry Committee Report, the active role of present accused applicant in the financial irregularity and embezzlement of public fund has not been completely ruled out. It is further submitted that there might be a possibility of completing the Government work in haste after filing of the F.I.R., but it is true and correct that when the F.I.R. was lodged, the construction of CC Road was not found on spot and other works were also incomplete, but the payment thereof was taken from the Government fund and a sum to the tune of Rs.5,44,334/- is still due against the present accused applicant, which is public money.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, likelihood 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.

¶13

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding 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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 ss

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nand Kishor Nayak v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Nand Kishor Nayak v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Shyam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinku Dubey Alias Pawan Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Tayyab Ali Vs State of U.P.

Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P.