Allahabad High Court
Avanish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64039 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2820 of 2025 Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 482 BNSS has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Bareilly, District Bareilly seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0006 of 2025 (Avanish Kumar vs. State of U.P.), under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Bareilly, District Anti Corruption Organization, U.P. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Mohd. Elias Kha gave a complaint dated 13.02.2025 in the office of Anti Corruption Organization, Bareilly making allegation inter-alia that he is presently posted as Head Master in P.M. Shri School since 2014. His salary for the months of April and May, 2024 was not released vide order of District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly dated 20.04.2024. Subsequently vide order dated 19.06.2024 of District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, a direction was made to release his salary and the said order was uploaded on the website but the applicant, who is Block Education Officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for forwarding applicant's arrears of bill to the accountant. It is also the case of the prosecution that in a follow up action on the complaint of the complainant, Veer Pal who is driver of the applicant was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- at the behest of the present applicant.
4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant-Mohd. Elias Kha is posted as Head Master in P.M. Shri School and he was involved in several irregularities, therefore, the applicant being Block Education Officer had made a complaint against him and also recommended for his suspension etc., therefore, the complainant gave a false complaint against the applicant in order to settle his personal score with an ulterior motive.
5-In support of aforesaid submission, it is further pointed out that after the order dated 19.06.2024 of District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly for release of salary of the complainant, the applicant forwarded the papers / bills to the accountant on 28.07.2024 but some correction was needed, hence the same was returned on 17.08.2024. After doing the required correction, applicant again forwarded the same on 09.10.2024 to the accountant. As such, on the day of moving a complaint dated 13.02.2025, there was no grievance of the complainant with regard to payment of his salary. It is further pointed out that on account of number of irregularities being done in the school of the complainant, applicant vide order dated 24.10.2024 recommended for suspicion and disciplinary proceeding against the complainant, on which his salary was again stopped by Basic Education Officer, Bareilly along with other persons who were involved in the said irregularities. In the enquiry proceeding, charges were framed against the complainant by the applicant on 22.01.2025 but the complainant did not give any reply to the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly had passed an order dated 01.02.2025 giving another opportunity of hearing to the complainant in the light of principle of natural justice but again, the complainant did not turn up, hence, the enquiry report against the complainant was accepted vide order dated 15.02.2025.
6-Much emphasis has been given by contending that when the complainant came to know that on non submitting any reply by him, now final order will be passed against him, then he made a false complaint on 13.02.2025 so that the final order may not be passed against the applicant on 13.02.2025. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Pursuant to F.I.R. of this case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the investigation of this case.
7-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., who has accepted notice of this case on 04.04.2025 opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as by contending that co-accused Veer Pal has accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- at the behest of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant and also does not dispute the fact that on the day of moving complaint i.e. on 13.02.2025, the issue with regard to release of payment of salary of the complainant was come to an end and there was no grievance of the complainant in this regard.
8-Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during investigation.
9-In the event of arrest of the applicant Avanish Kumar involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193 BNSS with the following conditions :-
i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer / investigating officer as and when required.
ii) 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.
iii)The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
10-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.
11-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Saurabh