Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/48/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged embezzlement in Gram Panchayat developmental work. The court granted interim protection on a personal bond pending the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, conditioned upon cooperation in investigation and not leaving India.

Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2906

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 48 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya in FIR/Case Crime No.0431/2022, under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mahoba, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while referring to the First Information Report and the copy of the inquiry report on the basis of which First Information Report has been lodged, vehemently submits that even if the inquiry report on the basis of which First Information Report has been lodged is taken on its face, it would emerge that certain discrepancies have been found in the developmental work done by the 'Gram Panchayat'. Applicant at the relevant point of time was the Secretary of the 'Gram Panchayat'.

¶9

It is vehemently submitted that the inquiry pertaining to the certain allegations of financial embezzlement has been done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kulpahar as well as by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. 'Mahoba' and it is only on the basis of the statements of the certain persons, who at the relevant point of time were present on the spot, the report has been submitted.

¶10

It is next submitted that the applicant is a respectable person in the locality and having roots in the society and is a law abiding citizen and he is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being granted the facility of anticipatory bail, he may flee from the course of law or otherwise misuse the liberty and he undertakes that he will

¶11

cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it was after thorough inquiry done by the Assistant Engineer concerned certain financial irregularities and misappropriation of the public money has been found and on the basis of that report the First Information Report has been lodged. Thus the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that on the basis of inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar and Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Mahoba with regard to the certain discrepancies found in the developmental work done by the Village Panchyat which was headed by the Pradhan of the Village Panchayat, the FIR has been lodged. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for applicant with regard to the serious discrepancies appearing in the inquiry report which is the basis of lodging the First Information Report. Village Pradhan, Pancham Singh and concerned J.E.Arvind Kumar Nahar, who was supervising the work and has prepared M.B., have been granted facility of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.03.2023 and 09.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC Nos.618 of 2023 and 33 of 2024 respectively. It is also submitted that the applicant will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required and would cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 561], Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 as well as in 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, MANU/SC/0360/2021 and also considering that co-accused persons, namely, Pancham Singh and Arvind Kumar Nahar, who was entrusted the work of different constructions, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I am of the consider view that interim protection may be granted to the instant applicant.

¶15

Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court, in the event of arrest of the applicant, involved in aforesaid case crime

¶16

number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶18

(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;

¶19

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

¶20

In case of any grievance the investigating agency or investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation or modification of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 MVS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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.

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