Disposed

Dinesh Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant, a Technical Assistant under the MGNREGA scheme, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging misappropriation of government funds based on an inquiry committee report. The court noted identically placed co-accused had been granted similar relief and disposed of the application with protection from arrest till submission of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest till police report under S.173(2) CrPC; release on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions.

Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2641

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 46 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Dutt Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi,Sudha Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶7

Heard Shri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel 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- Dinesh Dutt Shukla in Case Crime No. 344 of 2023, under Section 409 and 218 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhanepur, DistrictGonda with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant at the relevant point of time was posted as Technical Assistant with regard to Village PanchayatDulhampur, Block- Ithiyathok, District- Gonda, and was incharge of many projects which were going on under the 'MGNREGA' Scheme. However, the allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he having connivanced with the other co-accused person has misappropriated the government funds by withdrawing the money with regard to those works which have never been carried out.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the F.I.R. of this case appears to have been lodged on the basis of a report submitted by an inquiry committee which has come to the conclusion that misappropriation of government fund to the tune of Rs. 5,83,798.22/- has been made and in this regard on the basis of this inquiry report, a show cause notice was also given to him by the office of Chief Development Officer, Gonda on 14.07.2023 and reply of the same has been given by him on 21.07.2023. The copy of notice as well as the reply given by the

¶11

applicant has been placed as Annexures No.5 and 6 to the anticipatory bail application.

¶12

It is further submitted that after submission of the reply by the applicant, wherein it is specifically written that all works, which are being disputed, have been carried out on spot, no further proceedings have been taken and no order for recovery of any amount was directed to be recovered from the applicant as has been done in the case of co-accused Usha Devi, who at the relevant point of time was Pradhan of the village. However, the recovery certificate which was issued against the co-accused Usha Devi (village Pradhan) has been stayed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Devipatan, Gonda.

¶13

It is also submitted that the reply of the applicant is still pending before the Chief Development Officer, Gonda. Identically placed co-accused Usha Devi and Pankaj Kumar Maurya, who at that point of time were the village Pradhan and Gram Vikas Adhikari respectively, have been granted the facility of anticipatory bail by this Court till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. vide orders dated 4.1.2024 and 9.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 3070 of 2023 and 28 of 2024, respectively. The applicant undertakes that he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the Investigating Officer, as and when his presence would be required.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the matter pertains to misappropriation of huge amount of Government money and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any discretion.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he has misappropriated Rs. 5,83,798.22/- as the money has been withdrawn/paid with regard to the works of the aforesaid amount which were never executed. The basis of the first information report appears to be an Enquiry report submitted by an inquiry committee constituted in this regard. The inquiry committee has also recommended to recover the aforesaid amount from the applicant and in pursuance of the same a notice appears to have been issued against the applicant. However, no recovery certificate has been issued against the applicant, while recovery certificate has been issued against co-accused village pradhan, which has been stayed by Commissioner, Devipatan, Gonda in appellate proceedings. Identically placed co-accused persons namely, Smt. Usha Devi and Pankaj Kumar Maurya, who at

¶16

that point of time were the village Pradhan and Gram Vikas Adhikari respectively, have already been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C..

¶17

Having regard to 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 keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case i.e. that the report of the inquiry committee is yet to be considered by the appellate court in the proceedings pending before the Commissioner Devipatan, Gonda, liberty of the applicant, in view of the aforesaid law "Nathu Singh (supra)" may be protected till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶18

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Dinesh Dutt Shukla is, hereby, disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned 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 subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(2) 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;

¶21

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

¶22

In case of default of any condition, the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Shravan

¶25

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

Dinesh Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Afsar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arvind Kumar Nahar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prabhu Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another