Allahabad High Court
Uday Shankar Singh @ Munna Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 July, 2022
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1379 of 2022 Applicant :- Uday Shankar Singh @ Munna Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
On the first date of admission i.e. 24.02.2022, this Court has passed the following order"-
"1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely Uday Shankar Singh @ Munna Singh invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.294 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur.
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 29.01.2022.
(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.
(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.
(7) In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a Village Development Officer. It is submitted that the present FIR was lodged against the applicant for the alleged syphoning of government fund with the connivance with Ex-pradhan Rajesh Kumar Saroj. Both of them were handing in glove with each other and digested the government fund. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation.
(8) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
(9) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.
(10) The District Magistrate, Jaunpur is directed to hold in-camera departmental inquiry within a period of one month from today and pass a suitable order about the allegations levelled in the FIR. During this period, the applicant shall not be arrested and in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer with the conditions that :
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.
(iv) In the event the applicant is having his passport, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
(11) In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
(12) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicant on his arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against him. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicant is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and the material brought on record against the applicant during the investigation.
(13) Learned A.G.A. should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
(14) Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
(15) List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur has filed its report dated 05.07.2022 in the connected matter i.e. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.4620 of 2022. The perusal of report dated 05.07.2022 of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur reveals that out of total 26 assignments/ works, the required exercise has been carried out only for 13 assignments/ works. The report further reveals that it is not clear as to whether the entire amount for 26 assignments/ works has been given; against the work completed how much amount has been paid and what was the actual expenses in completing the aforesaid 26 assignments/ works, therefore, as per the opinion of the Inquiry Officer i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Kerakat, District-Jaunpur the exhaustive inquiry in the issue in question would be required so as to ascertain as to whether the amount of the government exchequer has been utilized/ usurped and, if so, who is / are actual responsible person/ persons for not completing the said assignments/ works. The actual person/ persons should be subjected to departmental inquiry. Therefore, the Chief Development Officer, District Jaunpur has been directed to conduct an exhaustive inquiry in the issue in question.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the present applicant and till filing of the charge-sheet there is no complaint that the present applicant has not co-operated with the investigation. Besides, the full fledged inquiry is to be conducted by the Chief Development Officer, District-Jaunpur, therefore, I feel it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions as indicated in an interim protection order dated 24.02.2022.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh