Allowed

Arjun Ram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2023ABAIL/9595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application regarding pending corruption, forgery, and embezzlement charges, finding a case made out based on the nature of accusation and applicant's clean record. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in similar amount, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205240

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9595 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arjun Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2006, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B/34 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Maniyar, District Ballia with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It was submitted that at the relevant time the applicant was working as Project Director and the first information report was registered in the year 2006 and that the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2021. The first information report was lodged against 122 accused persons, including applicant, and it is alleged that in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy an embezzlement of Rs.4,55,600/- and food-grains worth Rs.39.63 lacs of Sampurna Grameen Rozgar Yojna has taken place. Referring to the facts of the matter, it is submitted that applicant has discharged his duties with honesty and he was not involved in any embezzlement, cheating or forgery. Merely a vague allegation

¶9

has been made against applicant that he was also involved in the criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that during investigation, the arrest of the applicant was stayed by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2018. Now, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Satyendra Singh Gangwar has already been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which, is available on record. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that at the time of relevant time the applicant was working as Project Director and he was involved in the conspiracy, wherein, embezzlement of public funds has taken place. However, it could not be disputed that co-accused Satyendra Singh Gangwar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for

¶13

the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Arjun Ram in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii). The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii). The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v). 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the concerned court shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.10.2023/Anand

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun Ram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Ram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avimukteshwaranand Swami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Bhudevi Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Dulichand Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Nath Yadav @ Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P.