Allowed

Anang Pal Panwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024/242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a government employee facing charges of corruption and financial irregularity under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The applicant, who had been terminated from service following an inquiry, sought protection from arrest. Considering the co-accused had also been granted bail and the nature of allegations, the court granted antic

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-interference with witnesses, and permission for travel abroad.

Anang Pal Panwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12168

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 242 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anang Pal Panwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akshat Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that she has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation of the case is still pending.

¶7

Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Anang Pal Panwar in F.I.R./Crime No. 010 of 2023, under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 7, 13(1)(a), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Lucknow-Sector Vigilance Hazratganj, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant, as he had earlier approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 24 of 2024 and vide order of this Court dated 08.01.2024 the same was not found maintainable directly at the High Court in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of ' Ankit Bharti and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 and applicant was relegated to the District Court/Sessions Court. However, interim protection was provided in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 and when the applicant approached the district Court, his anticipatory bail prayer has been rejected by passing impugned order of date 25.01.2024.

¶10

Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate while drawing the attention of this Court towards the first information report as well as the other relevant documents placed on record, vehemently submits that applicant was initially appointed on the post of Trainee in Shreetan India Private Limited in the year 1998 which is a subsidiary of the State Government and thereafter was selected on the post of Junior Purchase Engineer and worked as a probationer w.e.f 14.09.2000, however since start of 2010 the applicant was diagnosed with acute Urinary Tract infection and the same was affecting his normal discharge of duties, therefore he applied for leave on 06.06.2010 and thereafter as he was being treated regularly by the doctors, he remained on leave. Having regard to the further deterioration in his health condition, he was forced to take further leave even without pay and in this process he also moved appropriate application for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the medical treatment and the same was granted to the tune of Rs. 86848/-. In the meantime, having regard to the performance of the applicant he was also promoted to the post of Manager on 02.03.2018 and thereafter to the Deputy General Manager on 13.08.2018.

¶11

It is further submitted that it was on 04.07.2020 he received a letter from the Managing Director of the Company with regard to receiving of a complaint against him and reply of the same was accordingly given by him on 10.07.2020 and thereafter matter appears to have been enquired by five members Inquiry Committee.

¶12

While drawing attention of the Court towards the inquiry report, it is vehemently submitted that even if this report is taken on its face the same may not attract ingredients of penal sections under which the FIR has been lodged.

¶13

It is also submitted that since the applicant has already been terminated on insufficient grounds and even if the finding of the inquiry committee is taken on its face, the same may only be relevant for taking disciplinary action against the applicant and the same may never be construed to initiate criminal prosecution.

¶14

It is also submitted that the applicant is aged about 52 years and he is having unblemished career and is not having any criminal antecedent against him. He is ready to join investigation and to abide any condition which may be imposed by this Court However, if he is placed behind bars the same would injure his reputation as well as his career prospects, thus, protection from arrest be granted to him.

¶15

It is vehemently submitted that even the whole allegations, as canvassed by the prosecution are taken on its face and believed as it is, the same may only project a case of financial irregularity which may corrected by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and the same has already been initiated and the applicant has been terminated from service and in case of further grievance of the employer if the money which has been withdrawn by the applicant is against the financial rules and regulations the same may also be recovered but the set of facts on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been lodged, may not be a basis for launching criminal prosecution by the employer against his own servant and employees.

¶16

It is further submitted that so munch so the co-accused persons, namely, Devi Singh, Rajpurohit and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who were managing directors and the factory manager at the relevant point of time have also been arrayed as an accused and they are also being prosecuted, however, they have been granted facility of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 14.12.2023 and 05.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2875 of 2023 and 2782 of 2023.

¶17

It is further submitted that applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. He is not having any criminal antecedents and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶18

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that Rs. 86,848/was illegally got sanctioned as medical reimbursement by the applicant and withdrawn and, thus, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that the charges against the applicant are to the tune that he has illegally got sanctioned an amount of Rs. 86,848/- as medical reimbursement by manipulating bills and also withdrawn the same. The defence of the applicant appears to be that, in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him he has been terminated and in case of further grievance of the employer, the amount shown as has been illegally withdrawn, may be recovered but by any stretch of imagination the same may not be the basis of launching criminal prosecution against him. It is also highlighted that even those persons who have sanctioned the amount and have given

¶20

the cheque of medical reimbursement to him have been arrayed as an accused persons, namely, Devi Singh, Rajpurohit and Rakesh Kumar Gupta. However, they appears to have been granted protection from arrest during the course of investigation as well as during the course of trial. There is no allegation that applicant is not cooperating in the investigation.

¶21

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others ':(2021)6 SCC 64, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case where the arrest of the applicant may be protected during the course of investigation as well as during the course of trial and in case of filing of any adverse police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

Thus, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant, is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Anang Pal Panwar, involved in the above noted case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer/Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

(iv) The applicant, in case of submission of adverse police report under section 173(2) CrPC against him, shall remain present before the trial Court on each and every dates as and when his presence would be required by the trial Court and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶27

The trial Court, in case of submission of adverse police report under Section 173(2) CrPC against the applicant, may impose any other suitable condition, in addition to the above-

¶28

mentioned conditions imposed by this Court, for procuring the presence of the applicant before it.

¶29

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶30

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶31

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 Praveen

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anang Pal Panwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anang Pal Panwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chandraveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raheem @ Raheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others