Allahabad High Court
Ram Vilas Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 31 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 709 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Vilas Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indu Prakash Singh,Salil Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter along with up-to-date case diary. Thus, there are sufficient material before this Court on the basis of which the instant anticipatory bail may be finally disposed of.
Heard Indu Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Ram Vilas Yadav, in Case Crime No. 0165 of 2015, under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the first information report, submits that in the F.I.R. which has been lodged on an order passed by the District Magistrate concerned on the enquiry report submitted by the D.P.R.O., Sultanpur pertaining to the allegations levelled for non-construction of 170 toilets and not completing the construction of remaining 219 toilets under the 'Scheme' of the Central Government.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the inquiry report pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the instant applicant, who at the relevant point of time was working as 'Village Development Officer', submits that vide this inquiry report all the charges levelled against the instant applicant have not been found proved and he has been exonerated from all the charges. It is also submitted that the said report of the inquiry officer has been accepted by the departmental head District Development Officer.
The attention of this Court was specifically drawn with regard to the observation of the inquiry officer pertaining to the charge nos. 4, 5 and 6, wherein the inquiry officer had categorically opined that 152 toilets were found functioning at the time of spot inspection and pertaining to the remaining 237 toilets the villagers have stated that they were completely constructed and have filed their affidavits in support of their contentions.
It is also submitted that inquiry officer has also opined that the inquiry officer on whose report the F.I.R. has been lodged did not perform his duty diligently and submitted a wrong report before the District Magistrate concerned.
It is next submitted that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and he has co-operated throughout. Charge sheet in this case has been submitted way back in 2018 and no process issued by the trial Court has ever been served on the applicant. Thus, he be granted protection from arrest during the course of trial.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and therefore, he is not entitled for any protection.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegations against the applicant and 'Pradhan' of the village are to the tune that they have misappropriated huge amount pertaining to the 'Scheme' of Central Government with regard to the construction of toilets in the village concerned. Earlier an inquiry was conducted by D.P.R.O., Sultanpur, wherein non-construction of 170 toilets and not completely constructing remaining 219 toilets were alleged and it is on the basis of this report the concerned District Magistrate has directed for lodging of the first information report. After lodging of the F.I.R., the charge sheet has also been submitted by the investigating officer against the instant applicant and the 'Pradhan' of the village as well. However, a departmental inquiry and disciplinary proceedings was also initiated against the instant applicant and the investigating officer of that disciplinary proceedings after detailed inquiry found the charges as mentioned in the first information report groundless on the ground that during the course of inquiry 150 toilets were found functional and pertaining to remaining 237 toilets the villagers have certified the construction of those and have also filed their affidavits and thereby exonerated the applicant of all the charges levelled against him. The said report has been inspected by the departmental head and he has been exonerated, however, his pensionery benefits were made subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against him. It appears to be an admitted case the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and as he was protected by an order of a Division Bench of this Court. He is not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that the applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation and would remain present before the trial Court when his presence would be required and he would not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted way back in the year of 2018.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 655, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest till conclusion of the trial may be granted to the instant applicant.
Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Ram Vilas Yadav is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, involved in the above noted case or on his surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. before 20.04.2023, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 20.04.2023 and will cooperate in the trial.
2. The applicant shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.
3. The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.
5. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023 Praveen