Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025ABAIL/1854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application for disproportionate-assets allegation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court, having earlier granted interim bail noting no show cause notice or check period in the FIR, disposed of the application by extending anticipatory bail until trial disposal under stated conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail extended to applicant till disposal of trial, subject to five conditions including cooperation in investigation and not leaving India without court permission.

Harendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4067

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

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

¶4

Applicant :- Harendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tilhari,Amar Deep Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 02/2024, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 P.S. Ayodhya Sector, District Ayodhya.

¶10

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.08.2024 following order was passed, wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a

¶16

previous convict; he has no criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

Learned AGA as per the instructions submits that check period 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.

¶18

List on 18.09.2024.

¶19

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶20

Steps be taken within a week.

¶21

List on 18.09.2024

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

From perusal of the order dated 27.08.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Harendra Kumar Singh till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶30

(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;

¶31

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶32

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶33

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶34