Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55417

Court No. - 78

Case : - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7608 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramkrit Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

¶7

2- The instant bail application under Section 483 (1) of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 46A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,201, 218, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3- Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are as under:-

¶9

3.1- In the year 2002, the Central Government had launched a scheme known as "Sampurna Gramin Rozgar Yojana" (hereinafter referred to as "SGRY"). Foodgrains and cash in lieu of work was the object of said scheme and the same was to be done at three levels (Gram Panchayat, Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat) as described in SGRY directory issued by the Government of India. 50% of total money and food grain allocated in the district was allocated to Gram Panchayat, 30% to Kshetra Panchayat and 20% to Zila Panchayat for getting the work done under the SGRY.

¶10

3.2- In the execution of said SGRY, some complaints were received at the Government level regarding malpractices, misappropriation and embezzlement

¶11

etc. of foodgrains and cash component by the officials and their other associates in several districts including District Ballia.

¶12

3.3- The Government constituted a High Level Committee to make enquiry in the matter. By the order dated 31.1.2005 of the State government, enquiry in respect of irregularities etc. in distribution of foodgrains and cash in lieu of work under SGRY was assigned to Crime Branch.

¶13

3.4- After enquiry and approval of the State government, total 51 F.I.Rs. were lodged in 14 different police stations of District Ballia against several public servants and private persons for misappropriation, malpractices and embezzlement of public money and foodgrains.

¶14

3.5- Thereafter, pursuant to order dated 13.7.2006 of the State Government, the investigation of 8 cases was handed over to the C.B.I. and investigation of 43 cases had been assigned to Economic Offences Wing, Sector Varanasi.

¶15

3.6- The instant case relates to the F.I.R. dated 8.5.2006 lodged against 151 accused persons, registered at Case Crime No 46A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, DistrictBallia.

¶16

3.7- Investigation of this case is still pending.

¶17

4- It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that with regard to alleged misappropriation and irregularities etc. occurred in the implementation of "SGRY" 2002-2005, the first information report had been lodged on 08.05.2006 against 151 accused persons. At the relevant point of time applicant was posted as Block Development Officer, Block Pandah, District Ballia during the period from 03.11.2003 to 28.02.2004. The applicant along with four other Block Development Officers are named in the said first information report, but no

¶18

specific role has been assigned to the accused persons. The allegation in the first information report is that certain development project under Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna was not executed as per norms, due to which the government has suffered a loss of Rs. 31,70,685/- and foodgrains worth Rs. 29,42,600/-. No specific amount of misappropriation has been quantified against the applicant. No departmental enquiry has been instituted in the matter against the applicant. All of sudden applicant was arrested on 20.01.2025. Thereafter, he came to know about his involvement in the present case. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The Project Director and C.D.O. are responsible for general supervision of the scheme. The applicant has retired from service on 30.06.2017 and his service career was throughout neat and clean. He never faced any departmental enquiry. At present applicant is aged about 68 years. Till date no charge sheet has been submitted. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2025. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the early disposal of the trial.

¶19

5- On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in the present case first information report was lodged against 151 named accused persons. The complicity of the applicant was found in this case. It is pointed out that the instant case relates to seven development works in which muster rolls were fraudulently prepared by the Village Secretary and the same were placed before the applicant and other Block Development Officers, who have granted approval of the said muster rolls without verifying the genuineness of the entries made in the said muster rolls and accordingly payment was released. He further submits that the applicant and co-accused persons by adopting different modus operandi embezzled a sum of rupees thirty one lac seventy thousand six hundred eighty

¶20

five and foodgrains worth rupees twenty lac forty two lac six hundred of SGRY during the period 20022005. Apart from this case the applicant is also involved in three other cases relating to SGRY, i.e. case crime No. 46 of 2006, 48 of 2006 and 48-A of 2006.

¶21

6- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that it is not in dispute that with regard to the incident of the year 2002-2005, the FIR had been lodged on 08.05.2006 and investigation is pending since last 18 years. Though the applicant was named in the FIR, but no efforts were made by the investigating officer for the last several years to arrest the applicant. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but he could not point out the exact amount embezzled by the applicant. Record indicates that specific amount of embezzlement against each individual has not been quantified. The prosecution/ E.O.W. is also responsible for keeping the investigation pending for last about eighteen years. There is no possibility of tampering the evidence. This Court is also of the view that parameters for grant of anticipatory bail pre-arrest, regular bail post-arrest of the accused and quashing of F.I.R. or charge-sheet stand on different footing. There is no material on record to presume that under the facts of the case, there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the applicant.

¶22

7- In view of the above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶23

8- Let the applicant-Ramkrit Ram, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned

¶24

with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶25

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not get himself involved in any criminal activity.

¶28

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶29

9- In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the prosecution / State to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail order of the applicant before this Court.

¶30

10- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Ishrat

¶32

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

Ramkrit Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrit Ram v. State of U.P.

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

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Aman vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P.

Raman vs State of U.P.

Dharam Nath Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another