Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6804 of 2023

Applicant :- Veerendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Prakash Kushwaha

¶4

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 - Veerendra Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0144 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the named accused persons, Mahendra Pandey, Gram Panchayat Adhikari, the present accused applicant, Technical Assistant in the Gram Panchayat Tikrauli and Smt. Priyanka Devi Gram Vikas Adhikari in collusion with each other took the payment regarding MANREGA work in respect of some deed and forged persons and caused monitory loss of public money. F.I.R. was lodged on the instructions of District Magistrate, Hamirpur by informant, Vipin Kumar, B.D.O, Hamirpur on 25.04.2023 and investigation started which is still going on.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicant that the applicant was working as Technical Assistant in the Gram Sabha and he had no concern with the payment of wages under the MANREGA Scheme. It is further submitted that no monitory gain has been received by him and he has not caused any monitory loss to the government. It is further submitted that earlier, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7903 of 2023 moved by

¶11

the present accused applicant but the same was rejected on 23.05.2023. It is next submitted that accused applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation so far.

¶12

It is further submitted that initially, an enquiry was conducted under the instructions of District Magistrate, Hamirpur wherein the present accused applicant was not found defaulter and subsequently, under the orders of concerned minister, an enquiry again was made by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur under instructions of Commissioner concerned and a forged report was prepared against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that Gram Pradhan of village, who is directly responsible for payment of wages under the MANREGA Scheme, surprisingly has not been made an accused in this case. It is next submitted that in view of that, the accused applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In the present case, it appears prima facie that while working as Technical Assistant, the present accused applicant had no concern with the payment of wages under the MANREGA Scheme.

¶15

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, 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.

¶16

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶17

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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶18

12. The application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Shivangi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veerendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another