Allowed

Shailendra Upadhayay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/57060/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed by an accused Village Pradhan charged under Section 409 IPC and sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriation of government funds. The Court granted bail, noting the applicant had a supervisor responsible for work quality.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Shailendra Upadhayay was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount. The order was subject to conditions preventing adjournments, ensuring presence in

Shailendra Upadhayay Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57060 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Upadhayay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pandey,Sanjiv Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 468 of 2009, under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi).

¶7

The accused applicant was Village Pradhan of Villagge Abarna of the Village Panchayat. The funds were sanctioned for construction of Junior High School in the said Village Panchayat. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., the roof of the said building has not been constructed and there are several defects and the accused applicant and other co-accused have misappropriated the government fund which was meant for construction of Junior High School and and have constructed a defective and dilapidated building for housing the students. The District Magistrate had enquired the complaint and finding the allegation correct, directed for lodging the F.I.R. and on the basis of this direction, the F.I.R. in question came to be registered. The accused applicant is in jail since 22.11.2022 and there is no other criminal history of the accused applicant.

¶8

It is submitted that Smt. Neelam Singh, the Head Mistress in

¶9

the School, was made Supervisor of the work/project, who is also an accused. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant being Village Pradhan had signed the cheques for withdrawal of the amount for payment to Contractor and others, therefore, it was the duty of the work Supervisor and Engineer etc. to see that the work of building was properly done and it was constructed as per the plan and standard.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not substantiate his submissions.

¶11

Considering the fact that the accused applicant is an Ex Pradhan and there being a Supervisor to keep supervision of the work whose duty was to supervise the work of school and which she has not done, this Court deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶12

Let applicant Shailendra Upadhayay be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Arun K. Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Upadhayay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Upadhayay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Prakash and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Veer Singh Vs C.B.I.

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddi @ Mariyam Vs State of U.P. and Another