Allowed

Lalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024/1180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for applicant Lalman in an FIR involving alleged misappropriation of funds and departmental negligence. The court granted bail on personal and surety bond after the State directed time to file objections.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted on personal bond with two sureties on specific conditions of availability and non-inducement.

Lalman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47837

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1180 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Nida Navi,Shishir Srivastava,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This Court by means of its order dated 27.05.2024 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0014/2023, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 204, 166 and 120-B IPC, relating to police station SIT, Lucknow.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that an FIR came to be lodged on 10.03.2023 wherein primarily the allegations were that certain officials of the Minority Welfare Department without making proper scrutiny and spot verification released funds in respect of certain Madarsas which were not existing and thus the release of the Government funds have been misappropriated.

¶11

The further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he was subjected to departmental enquiry in respect of identical charge wherein it was found that only against eight such Madarsas, proper scrutiny was not done and this fact apart it was based on the reports submitted by the other officials and the applicant himself was not squarely responsible.

¶12

It is further submitted that even in the departmental enquiry, the role of the applicant was not found substantiated, however, since the applicant was working in tandem with other officials,

¶13

consequently, he was let off with warning.

¶14

It has further been urged that despite the said order, the applicant assailed the same before this Court in WRIT-A No.2631 of 2023 wherein by means of the order dated 07.04.2023, the Court had granted indulgence and the order impugned dated 12.05.2022 was stayed.

¶15

It is also urged the subsequently once again departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on the same charge and the applicant was put under suspension which again become the subject matter of WRIT-A No.8423 of 2023 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 29.05.2023 had stayed the aforesaid suspension order, however, liberty was granted to conclude the proceedings.

¶16

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that till date the enquiry has not been concluded.

¶17

It has further been urged that the applicant has deep roots in the society. He is the District Welfare Minority Officer and he has no chance of fleeing justice or in a position either to tamper with the evidence or influence the witness.

¶18

It is further urged that the applicant is ready to cooperate in context with the fact that the FIR has been lodged in the year 2023 and till date there is no incriminating material found against the applicant nor the custody of the applicant has been sought for any interrogation. In such circumstances, in order to humiliate the applicant, he has now been impending threat of being arrested by the police authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is entitled for protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Learned AGA submits that he requires time to file his objections as well as seek his complete instructions.

¶20

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the learned AGA within a period of three weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the applicant, who if may so choose, may file his response thereto within a further period of ten days.

¶21

List this matter on 09.07.2024.

¶22

As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing in the event of arrest of the applicant- Lalman involved in the above-noted case crime, he shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station

¶23

House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

By means of the said order interim protection was granted to the applicant, in the meantime, the State was directed to file its counter-afÏdavit.

¶28

The record further indicates that the counterafÏdavit and rejoinder-afÏdavit have been exchanged between the parties.

¶29

Primary submission of the learned A.G.A. is that the applicant was part of the committee who had granted the recognition to certain Madarsas which were found to be non-existent. A specific pinpointed query was put to the learned A.G.A. to indicate from the material on record as to what is the material against the applicant by which it can be, prima facie , noticed that the applicant apart from being a member of the committee was required to discharge his duties of physically verifying the Madarsas despite the report of the inspector. It could not be pointed out that the applicant was under any obligation to verify the report submitted physically. All what has been said in the counter-afÏdavit filed by the State is that the applicant was a member of three persons committee who had relied upon the report of the inspector and had granted the conditional recognition that in case if any of the facts indicated were found to be false, the recognition would automatically stands cancelled.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the applicant is a public servant and has no criminal history.

¶31

This Court finds it a fit case to allow the present anticipatory bail in terms of the earlier order dated 27.05.2024 which is made abolute.The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶32

In the event of arrest of the applicant Lalman involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0014 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 204, 166, 120(B) IPC, relating to Police Station SIT, District Lucknow shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶33

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police ofÏcer as and when required;

¶34

(b) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence;

¶35

¶36

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶37

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶38

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶39

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶40

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 ank

¶41

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Liyakat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Ganga Ram and 15 Others Vs Collector Gonda Distt. Gonda and 4 Others

Arunesh Chandra Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi and Others

Aditya Singh Alias Major vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others

Lalman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.