Allowed

Birendra Swaroop Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024ABAIL/1342/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Birendra Swaroop Rai in a corruption case involving illegalities in construction works. The applicant faced no specific allegations of commission and co-accused had been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions including appearance before interrogating officers, no tampering with evidence, and no leaving India without permission.

Birendra Swaroop Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47407

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1342 of 2024 Applicant :- Birendra Swaroop Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla,Hari Krishna Chaubey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State as well as Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.10 of 2021, under Sections 120-B, 409 I.P.C., registered at Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 22.03.2021 against 13 persons, including the applicant. The date of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R is 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2013. The F.I.R alleges that various illegalities were committed in 137 construction works carried out by Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam during the period 2004-05 and 2012- 13. The applicant was working as Deputy Engineer and there is no specific allegation of any act of commission by the applicant in the F.I.R.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a co-accused person has been granted bail and four co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in the present case and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 4 to 8 in the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he

¶12

could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R does not contain any specific allegation of act of commission by the applicant and that a co-accused person has been granted bail and four co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in the present case and without making any observations which may affect the outcome 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 applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant - Birendra Swaroop Rai before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 themselves 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 :- 12.7.2024 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Birendra Swaroop Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Swaroop Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaushalendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Empowerment, Persons With Disabil. and Ors.

Vakeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Siraj Ahmad and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko