Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4289

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11790 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Rai,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rajesh Kumar with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant in connection with Special Trial No. 536 of 2024 (State Vs. Anwar Hussain and others) arising out of Case Crime No.43 of 2022, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra till conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that during the course of investigation the applicant was granted an order of no coercive action until further orders by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.3.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2798 of 2024, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no.16 to the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application and the same reads as under:-

¶10

"1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report registered on 7.4.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No.0043 of 2022 under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra.

¶11

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that to begin with the petitioner and some other officials were charged only for having paid more than the price the benches were worth and thereafter upon some flimsy verification it was alleged that the benches which were actually installed were lesser in number than the actual number of benches for which payments had been made. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that whatever alleged loss was incurred by the State had already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the FIR is dated 7.4.2022 but the investigation has not been completed till date.

¶12

3. Matter requires consideration.

¶13

4. Learned AGA appears for respondent nos.1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent no.3 by registered post. Steps may be taken within a week.

¶14

5. Respondents may file their counter affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder

¶15

affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶16

6. List on the dated fixed in the notice before the appropriate Court.

¶17

7. Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. The petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation."

¶18

It is submitted that subsequently since the charge sheet in the matter was submitted on 9.4.2024, the writ petition was dismissed. It is further submitted that the present dispute relates to price being paid for benches. In so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned for the same allegations, the same have concluded and the allegations against the applicant could not be proved and as such the proceedings were closed vide order dated 4.4.2024 passed by Block Development Officer, Myorpur, Sonbhadra, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no.21 to the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that orders were passed for recovery of the amount in dispute from the applicant which was challenged before this Court in which coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.5.2024 passed in Writ-A No.6286 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) passed an order directing that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner therein in pursuance of the orders impugned therein, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no.22 to the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application and the same reads as under:-

¶19

"The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 6.4.2022 passed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, District Sonbhadra and 7.4.2022 passed by the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Babhani, Sonbhadra directing that recovery be made from the petitioner.

¶20

It has been stated in the writ petition that the orders have been passed ex-parte and have been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges by the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 4.4.2024. It has been stated that the recovery orders were passed without waiting for the inquiry to have been completed.

¶21

The petitioner is, at present, employed as Village Development Officer and at the relevant time was posted as Village Development Officer in Gram Panchayat (Block) Babhani, District Sonbhadra.

¶22

The matter requires consideration.

¶23

The Standing Counsel representing the respondents prays for and is granted eight weeks' time to file his counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List before the Registrar after expiry of the aforesaid period who shall fix any date for admission if counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed by the parties. The Registrar may, if necessary, grant further opportunities to the parties to file their affidavits but not more than two further opportunities shall be granted by the Registrar.

¶25

Meanwhile, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner in pursuance to the orders dated 6.4.2022 passed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, District Sonbhadra and 7.4.2022 passed

¶26

by the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Babhani, Sonbhadra."

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶28

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was granted protective order by a Division Bench of this Court during the pendency of investigation. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. The departmental proceedings against the applicant have ended in his exoneration. The recovery of the alleged amount as ordered has been stayed by another Bench of this Court.

¶29

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest of the applicant Rajesh Kumar , involved in aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶33

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶34

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶35

The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶36

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of .

¶37

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶38

Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Gaurav Kuls

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases