Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023ABAIL/8609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by Rajesh Kumar. The court held that given the evidence of collusion causing financial loss to the Electricity Department, it was not a fit case to grant bail till the end of the trial, exercising its discretion based on Sushila Aggarwal principles.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is refused; application rejected.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155020

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8609 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Bhushan Kunwar,Prakhar Saran Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.310 of 2023, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, this application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rajesh Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned senior counsel, assisted by Shri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar and Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Electricity Department / Power Corporation and perused the record.

¶8

In this matter, F.I.R. was lodged against the named accused persons including the present accused applicant on 14.6.2023 in pursuance of the Departmental Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Power Corporation. It was alleged therein that the accused applicant, who happens to be the Draftman, along with other co-accused employees made forged work orders / bills and uploaded the same on the portal of the Power Corporation and thereby they tried to give wrongful gain to different agencies and to cause serious financial loss to the Corporation.

¶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. He has not committed any offence. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant was working as Draftman in Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Mandal, Ballia at the relevant point of time and that was not a duty of the present

¶10

applicant to upload the bills/ work orders on the official portal. It is further submitted that the applicant was working under control of Junior Engineer (Technical) and he was in-charge of the work relating to business plan and map etc. only. It is further submitted that no actual payment has been made in this matter but only attempt for wrong payment has been alleged. It is further submitted that the alleged forgery is said to be committed about 7- 8 years before lodging of the FIR and in the inquiry report dated 2.6.2023 it was specifically mentioned after a lapse of so many years the physical verification of the work alleged is not possible. It is also submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant never made any forged work orders / bills nor uploaded the same on official portal. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Investigation of the case is still going on and applicant is cooperating with the investigation and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that by making forged work orders / bills and uploading the same on the portal of the Power Corporation. The applicant has caused heavy monitory loss to the government department. It is further submitted that the act of uploading was made by the present accused applicant and thereafter records were handed over by him to Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, accountant. Sufficient evidence has been collected during course of investigation regarding his involvement in the commission of the crime. There is no possibility of any false implication of the accused applicant in this matter. In view of that, a prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application has been made.

¶13

In the present case a huge financial loss has been caused to the electricity department by the present applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons and ample evidence has been collected against him during course of investigation and his active participation and role in the crime alleged has been found during investigation.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Fhd

¶19

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

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sharan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Harijan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagelal Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gajla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Long Sri Vs State of U.P. and Another