Satish Gulati Vs State of U.P. Thru. CBI Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62565

Court No. - 19

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 330 of 2023

Applicant :- Satish Gulati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Akhilendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondent- C.B.I. and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. R.C. No. 0062014A0008, under Sections 120- B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station C.B.I./A.C.P., Lucknow, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.02.2014 against five persons not including the applicant, alleging certain irregularities and misappropriation persons of MANREGA funds. In the charge sheet submitted after investigation, the applicant was also implicated as an accused regarding whom it was stated that he had purportedly supplied the items on behalf of the Panchayat Udyog Jhanjhri to DRDA, Balrampur and Panchayat Udyog Jhanjhri had submitted a bill dated 28.5.2008 for Rs. 24,12,800/- to CDO, Balrampur.

¶9

Later on it was found that no supply had been made and the bills were fake.Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made supplies to the Panchayat Udyog Jhanjhri and not to the DRDA and in case, Panchayat Udyog Jhanjhri has committed any illegality in supply, the applicant has no concern.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that co-accused-Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi, who is District Development Officer, Balrampur, has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.8.2023 passed in

¶11

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 594 of 2023 .

¶12

The learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Satish Gulati before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶18

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

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 A nuj Singh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Gulati v. State of U.P. Thru. CBI Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Gulati v. State of U.P. Thru. CBI Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Bajpeyi Vs Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No 15 Lko. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Lallu Ram Vs District Judge, Distt. Shrawasti and 5 Others

Mohd. Azim and another vs Mohd. Ishaq and others

Smt. Vandana vs Shyam Kumar

Kanchan Kankubji Gupta vs Smt. Sangeeta Devi