Dismissed

Avdhesh Narayan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2024NABAIL/11437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected. Applicant, retired Additional Project Manager, faced corruption charges for disproportionate assets. Though investigation concluded and applicant summoned, he evaded summons leading to bailable warrants. Court found allegations substantiated and held it was not a fit case for interference.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected.

Avdhesh Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:184806

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11437 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Avdhesh Narayan Singh , seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0003 of 2021, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station U.P. Vigilance Department Sector, District Varanasi.

¶8

The present case has been initiated on the basis of an inquiry for the check period from 01.01.2007 upto 31.12.2011 wherein it transpired that the applicant had disproportionate assets excess from his known income.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant retired as Additional Project Manager of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam which is the second highest post in the department. It is submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter lasted for three years and the applicant co-operated in the same and as such there was no occasion for arrest of the applicant. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded after which charge sheet has been submitted on 05.09.2024 on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 21.09.2024. It is further submitted that since the applicant was not arrested during investigation there is no fruitful purpose of arresting now.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment

¶11

of the Apex Court in the cases of Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : (1977) 1 SCC 816 (para 33), Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI (para 10, 11, 12), Asha Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; SLP (Criminal) No. 13123 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 and Mahdoom Bava Vs. CBI : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 299 (para 9, 10) to submit that after the submission of charge sheet the applicant has been summoned. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 43 of the affidavit.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against him and having disproportionate assets excess from this income. It is submitted that there has been departmental proceedings in which also the income of the applicant was found disproportionate. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on which the court concerned has been taken cognizance subsequent to which bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant, he did not turn up in respect to the summoning order. It is submitted that looking to the facts of the matter and the conduct of the applicant it is clear that the applicant was involved in corruption which has to be considered to be a serious offence and further the conduct of the applicant in evading summon has resulted in issuance of bailable warrants against him and as such the present anticipatory bail application be rejected.

¶13

After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present case relates to be disproportionate assets collected by the applicant over and above his known sources of income. The investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned him. The allegations thus stand proved more than prima facie against him in respect of summons after cognizance were issued and the applicant did not adhere to it and then bailable warrants have been issued against him. The matter relates to monitory implication and corruption. I do not find it a fit case for interference.

¶14

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avdhesh Narayan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhesh Narayan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases