Allowed

Parth Raj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024ABAIL/6831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, an accused in a corruption case involving embezzlement of funds during bench purchase. The court considered departmental exoneration and exigency of funds for bail deposit while imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions of self-report, no tampering, and no leaving India.

Parth Raj Singh vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120622

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6831 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Parth Raj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Rai,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that first information report of this case was lodged on 08.04.2022 against five accused persons, namely, Parthraj Singh (present applicant), Ramlal, Tayara Bano, Kamta Prasad and Shripal with regard to embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 5,56,212/- committed in purchase of cemented benches. So far as present applicant is concerned, it is submitted that he is Village Development Officer of Village Sundari and allegation of embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 2,78,106/- was imposed upon him, out of which, Rs. 2,67,000/- has been recovered from him during the course of departmental enquiry but later on, he has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry vide enquiry report dated 30.04.2024 because all the four charges levelled against him were not found true. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.05.2024 of District Development Officer, Sonbhadra, departmental enquiry against the applicant has been dropped. It is

¶9

also submitted that in the departmental enquiry against co-accused Tayara Bano, who is village pradhan of village Sundari, it has been found that price of benches was worth Rs. 2,40,000/- but she has paid Rs. 2,49,994/-, as such, excess payment of Rs. 9994/- was made by her and accordingly, in exercise of power under Section 95(1)g of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 06.04.2022 directed her to deposit 50% of said amount, i.e., Rs. 4997/- within a week and the said amount has been deposited by her on 11.07.2022. On the said ground, co-accused Tayara Bano has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4969 of 2022 till submission of police report, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the similar relief. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Pursuant to F.I.R. of this case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the investigation of this case.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant but could not dipsute the above factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during investigation.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicant Parth Raj Singh involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station

¶13

House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the following conditions :-

¶14

i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer / investigating officer as and when required.

¶15

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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Shubham

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parth Raj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parth Raj Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh vs State of U.P.

Brijesh vs State of U.P.

Saltu Ram vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Banjara @ Ramu vs State of U.P.

Mintoo Beldar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another