Dismissed¶14

Bhagirath Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jan 2025ABAIL/692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2); disproportionate assets; 88.74% excess expenditure over known sources of income; government servant; Assistant, Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Bijnor; Case Crime No. 1008 of 2023; Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor; check period 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2014; Bhagirath Singh; application rejected; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Samit Gopal, J.

What did the court decide?

In the enquiry during the check period the applicant, a government servant, was found to have expenditure about 88.74% above his known sources of income; the matter relates to corruption. ¶13

Bhagirath Singh Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13719

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 692 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Bhagirath Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Bhagirath Singh , seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 1008 of 2023, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor.

¶9

The facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as an Assistant in the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Bijnor since the year 2009. He was initially appointed as Class IVth employee in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor in 1997. After creation of the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, he was absorbed in the said department on the post of Anusweak (Assistant) which is a Class IVth post at Bijnor.

¶10

The allegations against the applicant are that an enquiry was held and during the check period from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2014 he was found to have received a salary of Rs. 10,91,748/-, additional salary of Rs. 1,32,208/-, bonus of Rs. 30,046/-, having agricultural income of Rs. 3,37,000/-, GPF contribution of Rs.50,000/-, income from dairy Rs. 10,58,955/- and interest of Rs. 51,842/- which was his known sources of income which amounted to Rs. 27,51,799/- but during the said period, he had an expenditure of Rs. 51,93,845/- which was in excess of Rs. 24,42,046/- being 88.74% excess of his known sources of income. The present FIR has thus been lodged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is an honest person working in the department. It is further submitted that the income of the wife of the applicant has not been considered while calculating the expenditure. It is submitted that the information of land purchased by the applicant was given to the department and there was no concealment by him. It is submitted that there has been a total miscalculation by the agency concerned as the income of father and mother of the applicant has also not been considered which was pension received by them and was spent within the family. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in par 29 of the affidavit.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant being a government servant was found to have spent money excess of his known sources of income. It is submitted that the present matter is a matter in which the applicant was involved in corruption and has an expenditure much more than his known sources of income. It is submitted that in so far as the clubbing of income of wife and parents are concerned, the same is a matter of trial which will be considered before the court concerned at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that prima facie the allegations and the enquiry show that the applicant is involved in corruption and has heavy expenditure than his known sources of income which is disproportionate. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail application be rejected.

¶13

After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is a government servant. During check period, in enquiry it transpired that he had an expenditure excess of his known sources of income which was about 88.74% above than his known sources of income. The matter relates to corruption. The Courts have always been at caution while dealing with the corruption by government servants. Corruption is to be dealt with strong hand. I do not find it a fit case for interference.

¶14

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

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

Bhagirath Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases