Allahabad High Court
Kunwar Pal Singh Chauhan (Anticipatory ... vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- BAIL No. - 8301 of 2019 Applicant :- Kunwar Pal Singh Chauhan (Anticipatory Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kishor Singh,Shobhit Bajpai Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.420 of 2017, under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act of Police Station Barra, District Kheri.
The gist of allegations in the F.I.R. is that Commandant General, Home Guards, Head Quarter, U.P., Lucknow vide letter dated 25.9.2012 sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Prevention of Corruption Act, Lucknow to investigate the matter against the petitioner, who was working as Company Commander in Company No.24, Kanpur Nagar (without pay). The petitioner's income for the check period between 1.9.1992 to 31.3.2010 was assessed and it was found to be 3,85,666/-. During this period, the petitioner had purchased and constructed the house for a value of Rs.2,23,000/-, purchased a Maruti Zen Car for a value of Rs.50,000/- and a Motorcycle for Rs.43,000/-, Revolver for Rs.63,000/- and petrol for Motorcycle and Car for Rs.500/- and the maintenance of family @ Rs.1,27,269. During this period, the applicant spent Rs.7,535/- on education of his daughter. Thus, he has spent a total amount of Rs.5,14,804/- against Rs.3,85,666/- and, hence he spent an excess amount of Rs.1,27,269/- during this check period from his known sources of the income. Thus, the petitioner had guilty of offence under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
At the stage of considering the anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to evaluate the defence evidence of the applicant.
Since, prima facie, the offence is made out against the petitioner under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and it has been found that during check period, he spent more amount of Rs.1,27,269/- than his known sources of the income.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and it will be open to the applicant to urge all these grounds while seeking regular bail after surrender.
In view thereof, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This application is accordingly rejected.
The applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of 15 days and once he surrenders, the trial court should consider the bail application in the light of the observations made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For 15 days, the interim order granted on 18.9.2019 shall continue.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Rao/-