Allowed

Rajkeshwar Lal and Antoher v. State of U.P. and Antoher

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023ABAIL/9878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of misappropriation under various IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act sections, the Allahabad High Court allowed the application, directing the release of applicants upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed. Release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to conditions including cooperation in investigation.

Rajkeshwar Lal and Antoher Vs State of U.P. and Antoher — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193156

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9878 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajkeshwar Lal And Antoher Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Antoher 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 applicants, 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. 18 of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Dokati, 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 applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas, there is no credible evidence against them. The prosecution version is that under the scheme of Sampuran Gramin Rojgar Yojana, huge amount, meant for food-grains to be supplied to eligible beneficiaries, was misappropriated by applicant and co-accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that applicant No. 1 has remained posted as Block Development Officer in District Ballia from 02.06.2004 to 29.07.2005, and applicant No. 2 has remained posted as District Youth Welfare and P.V.D. Officer in District Ballia from January, 2001 to July, 2003, whereas, the said scheme was being enforced since the year 2002. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no specific allegation against

¶9

the applicants. No amount was shown to be transferred to the applicants. It was submitted that after registration of case, applicants have filed a petition for quashing of FIR, wherein, by order dated 14.08.2018, this Court has directed that till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., applicants shall not be arrested. Now investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2020. The applicant No. 1 has already retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. It was also stated that interim relief has already been granted in respect of co-accused Arjun Ram, Ramkishun Ram in their respective applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In similar matters, applicants have already been granted anticipatory bail. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶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 applicants 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 applicants-Rajkeshwar Lal and Shashi Bhushan Sharma, in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :- (i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶16

(ii) the applicants 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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Suraj

¶20

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

Rajkeshwar Lal and Antoher v. State of U.P. and Antoher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkeshwar Lal and Antoher v. State of U.P. and Antoher

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

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandkishore Trambaklal Dave and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Prem Vs State of U.P. and Others

Animesh Verma and 2 Others Vs C.B.I.

Arjun Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another