Allowed

Devendra Prasad Joshi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2024ABAIL/1214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed in corruption and IPC cases involving missing electrical poles. The court granted bail primarily due to the 19-year delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant's clean record, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties, cooperation in investigation, and non-departure from India without permission.

Devendra Prasad Joshi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53961

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1214 of 2024 Applicant :- Devendra Prasad Joshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 13/2023, under Sections 409/120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S Lucknow Sector (Satarkta Adhishthan), District Lucknow.

¶6

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

¶7

Apparently, the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the U.P. Vigilance Department alleging that an open enquiry was made in respect of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidhyutikaran Yojna wherein the tender was granted to Reliance Energy Ltd. Noida vide work order dated 01.08.2005 regarding electrification of 85 villages. According to the applicant, electrification and poles were to be erected under the orders of the then Assistant Engineer in the Sub Divisional Office, EDD, Hardoi whereas the hand over memo was got done to the then Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer whereas the applicant was not the authorized official. On an enquiry it was found that for 85 villages as many as 466 poles were found missing wherein the cost for each pole was at the rate of Rs.6973/- and total cost was around Rs.324918/-. It has been alleged that the aforesaid

¶8

amount has already been paid for the said poles and 35 pieces of P.C.C. poles, length 9 meters were found missing and the cost for erection of same came to around Rs.29584/-; 35 numbers of double poles were also erected and the cost estimated to Rs.1035440/-; 227 numbers of L.T. Line P.C.C. poles were also found missing which were amounting to Rs.1582871/- and distancing wires, jumpers, other electric appliances estimated cost of Rs.2902900.40/- were also shown missing; although disbursement was made for each of them.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged misappropriation is of year 2005-2006. FIR has been lodged after a delay of 19 years. The applicant was then posted as Assistant Engineer/S.D.O., Hardoi in EDD, Electricity Department. No complaint has ever been lodged by any of the member of public or no one else regarding missing polls. There may be plenty of reasons for missing polls such as natural calamities etc. The applicant has an unblemished career and is going to retire within two years. FIR has been lodged after a delay of 19 years only to malign his reputation.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the fact that FIR has been lodged after a delay of 19 years, so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶12

In view of the above, if the applicant is summoned to face trial

¶13

for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O./trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶15

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶16

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

¶17

(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 R.C.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Prasad Joshi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Prasad Joshi 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

Mohd. Tanveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Munna Khan Alias Razi Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Bittoo Jaiswal @ Kamlesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Satya Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Om Prakash Ray @ Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sachin Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.