Ugrasen Pandey Alias Agrasen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42593

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1509 of 2025

Applicant :- Ugrasen Pandey Alias Agrasen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,Shailendra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the applicant seeking Anticipatory Bail after submission of charge-sheet dated 27.06.2024 in Case Crime No. 131 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)D, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1958, Police Station Murshan, District Hathras.

¶8

3-During investigation of this case, following order was passed by this Court on 18.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1620 of 2024 :-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶10

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2019, under Sections 13(1)D, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Murshan, District Hathras, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶11

Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that on 27.06.2019 a First Information Report was lodged against twelve accused persons, namely, M.P. Singh, Qamar Ahmad, Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Agrasen (applicant), Satish Chand Sharma, Netrapal Singh, Shailendra Singh, Satish Chand Upadhyay, Smt. Anita, Smt. Savitri Devi, Smt. Nisha, Smt. Poonam Upadhyay for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406 409, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation in the present

¶12

case is that U.P. Chief Minister Poor Economic Assistance Scheme was started in the year 2010-11. In the first installment of the year 2012-13 and before that, pension amount was sent to the account of only 40 beneficiaries but in the second installment of 2012-13, additional 69 beneficiaries were getting pension amounting to Rs. 2400/- per beneficiary, totaling amount of Rs. 165600/- and in the year 2013-14, Rs. 2400/- per beneficiary, totaling amount of Rs. 261600/- was transferred to the accounts of 60 beneficiaries as first installment and 49 beneficiaries as second installment. As such under the Rani Laxmi Bai Pension Scheme of the year 2012-13, the pension amount to sixty-nine fake beneficiaries was transferred by creating a list of fake beneficiaries.

¶13

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that on 03.12.2012, the applicant had taken additional charge of Project Director/Samaj Kalyan Adhikari and on 13.12.2012, he retired from his service. At the relevant point of time the applicant had granted approval to the list of beneficiaries in good faith on the proposal submitted by the Village Pradhan and the Secretary of the village concerned, which was recommended by the Block Development Officer. Referring the allegations made in F.I.R. it is also submitted that maximum the case of negligence on the part of the applicant is made out against him, as there is no allegation of misappropriation or embezzlement of the fund in question by the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that it was the duty of the applicant to get all the entries and list verified before making signature on the document, but he does not dispute that there is no direct allegation of embezzlement of money against the applicant.

¶15

Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Ugrasen Pandey @ Agrasen, involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the following conditions :-

¶17

1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a

¶18

police officer as and when required.

¶19

2) 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.

¶20

3) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶21

4) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed."

¶24

4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2024, applicant has co-operated with the investigating and did not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail. It is next argued that no new material has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant after 18.04.2024 and illegally submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 27.06.2024. It is lastly submitted that since the applicant has not misused the liberty of aforesaid anticipatory bail which was granted on 18.04.2024, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another , (2020) 5 SCC 1.

¶25

5-Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶26

6-In view of the above, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail during his trial.

¶27

7-Accordingly, applicant-Ugrasen Pandey Alias Agrasen is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial, subject to following conditions:-

¶28

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

¶29

(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 tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶31

(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.

¶32

(v) In case, it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶33

8-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

¶34

9-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Sanjeet

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ugrasen Pandey Alias Agrasen v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ugrasen Pandey Alias Agrasen 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases