Disposed

Harendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024ABAIL/1854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a disproportionate assets FIR under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) PC Act. Noting no check period stated in the FIR, absence of criminal history and the Sushila Aggarwal judgment, the court granted interim protection from arrest till next listing with conditions to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.: on arrest, release on personal bond and two sureties till next listing (18.09.2024), subject to cooperation conditions.

Harendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1854 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Harendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tilhari,Amar Deep Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 02/2024, under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, P.S. Ayodhya Sector, District Ayodhya.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that vide govt. order dated 06.11.2020, the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department was directed to conduct an open inquiry against the applicant. In the inquiry it was found that the applicant being a public servant earned Rs. 5633998/- and spent a total amount of Rs. 9458922/-, thus, has earned income disproportionate to his salary.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been given any show cause notice calling for his explanation regarding his disproportionate asset which is sin qua non for Section 13(1) and 13 (2) of PC Act. It has been further submitted that no check period has been provided in the FIR. FIR is bogus and vague and it is impossible for the applicant in such circumstances to give any reply in the preliminary inquiry which even otherwise was not conducted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has no criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶10

Learned AGA as per the instructions submits that check period

¶11

of the FIR is 01.03.2012 and 15.03.2019, however, he could not show that any show cause notice or opportunity was given to the applicant to submit his explanation regarding the alleged disproportionate source of income.

¶12

List on 18.09.2024.

¶13

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶14

Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

List on 18.09.2024

¶16

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the fact that no check period has been given in the FIR; the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶19

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

¶20

Learned Addl. Government Advocate may file counter affidavit in the meantime.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.8.2024/R.C.

¶22

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

Harendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Kumar Singh 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

Aadya Prasad Tiwari Vs State O U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Yameen Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bhim Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Chaman Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko

Mosin @Mohsim Vs state of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and others