Allahabad High Court
Ram Pravesh Singh @ R.P. Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2021
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- BAIL No. - 8430 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Singh @ R.P. Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA for the applicant, learned AGA for respondent - State and Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for students.
2. As per prosecution case, a complaint has been lodged by Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UPSSSC) in regard to Advertisement No.02-???????/2018 regarding Village Panchayat Officer, Village Development Officer and Supervisor, Social Welfare Department, 2018 examination, wherein certain discrepancies were found in evaluation of answer sheets of candidates in collusion with certain unknown persons, who submitted blank OMR sheets for achieving government service. Name of the applicant came on the statement of co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the name of the applicant has been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused persons. The applicant has no access inside the government office and has not committed the alleged crime. No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicant. He further submitted that the matter is triable by Magistrate and the applicant is in jail since 05.04.2021.
4. He next submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. He further submitted that another co-accused, namely, Rajiv Dennis Joseph and Satya Pal Singh have been granted bail by this Court in Bail Nos.8372 of 2021 and 8539 of 2021 vide orders dated 10.08.2021 and 12.08.2021, respectively. The copy of the bail orders dated 10.08.2021 & 12.08.2021 have been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant during course of the arguments. Therefore, his submission is that case of the applicant stands at the same footing as to the case of co-accused persons to whom bail has been granted and hence, the applicant is entitled for the parity of the same.
6. On the other hand, Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent - students opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant is having a criminal history of six cases, which has not been explained in the bail application.
7. Learned AGA opposed the bail and submitted that from possession of the applicant, a recovery of Rs.19 Lacs and odd has been made, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the six cases, as defined by learned counsel for the respondent - students, were lodged against the applicant after lodging of the FIR in the present case and till date the applicant has not been arrested in any case. In regard to objection raised about recovery of Rs.19.00 Lacs and odd, he invited attention of this court to paragraph-32 of the bail application, wherein statement of fact has been made as under:
"...... the applicant had earlier sold property for an amount of Rs.2.67 crores and as per the Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2018-19 the applicant has generated more than Rs.2.00 crores as capital gains. The applicant by means of the Income Tax Return intents to show that the amount allegedly shown to have been recovered is actually the capital generated by him. ......"
9. Thereafter, learned counsel for the respondents are unable to dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material available on record, keeping in view the nature of offence and totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merits of the case and also on the ground of parity, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
11. Let applicant, Ram Pravesh Singh @ R.P. Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.02 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station - S.I.T., District-Lucknow be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall, however, co-operate and attend the proceedings at every stage without seeking unnecessary adjournments just to prolong the proceedings.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Adarsh K Singh