Rajkumar Ranjan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56078

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2431 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajkumar Ranjan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in SST No. 598 of 2024 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Ranjan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kachhwa, District Mirzapur, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Mirzapur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that a first information report was lodged on 07.11.2020 for the offence under Sections 13(1) (b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant alleging inter-alia that pursuant to order of the State Government dated 18.09.2012, an enquiry regarding disproportionate asset of the applicant was conducted by Anti Corruption Organization. In the enquiry, it was found that applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department and during the check period form 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012, he had earned total Rs. 13,61,199/- from all his sources whereas during the said check period, he had spent Rs. 31,01,707/-, as such, Rs. 17,40,508/- was found excess which was

¶9

128% more than his known sources of the income.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with regard to the check period between 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012, F.I.R. was lodged after much delay on 07.11.2020. The enquiry proceeding against the applicant was initiated on the complaint dated 24.01.2011 of one Mr. Durgesh Chandra Tripathi r/o Bhualpur, Post Sikhad, District Mirzapur, who happens to be nephew of Mr. Prakash Chandra Tripathi (Village Pradhan), where the applicant was posted at that time. In the enquiry of Anti Corruption Organization, the disproportionate asset ratio of the applicant was shown as 128 % more than his income, whereas in the investigation, the same has been shown as 21% more than his income which reflects that the entire case against the applicant is based on mere assumptions. The applicant and his wife both were in government services and they have also taken a loan from Samsher Singh and Rakesh Dubey but the investigating officer, without considering the said fact, illegally submitted chargesheet against the applicant. The allegations against the applicant are false. The applicant was not afforded proper opportunity before lodging first information report. Lastly it is submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶11

Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that the investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet dated 15.06.2024 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. Lastly it is submitted that in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 , refusal of anticipatory bail in an appropriate case does not amount to denial of rights conferred upon applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no exceptional ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction

¶12

under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. in favour of the applicant, hence the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that after culmination of investigation, chargesheet No. 7/2024 dated 15.06.2024 has been submitted against the applicant, on which concerned court below took cognizance of the offence on 18.06.2024 and summoned the applicant to face trial. Despite service of summon upon the applicant, he did not appear before the trial court, therefore, on 21.08.2024 bailable warrant was issued against him, but again he did not appear. Then on 15.10.2024 non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant and on 22.11.2024 direction for proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued and finally on 27.01.2025 the order under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has also been passed. Hence in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 , I do not find any good ground to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶14

Accordingly this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is rejected .

¶15

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. Learned concerned court below while considering regular bail application of the applicant shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Kashifa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar Ranjan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Ranjan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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