Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Singh Yadav vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 806 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal,Chandan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
This is the second anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in FIR/Case Crime No.238 of 2021, under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station -Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow.
Sri Goswami has filed a supplementary affidavit today, the same is taken on record.
This Court has passed the order dated 4.4.2023, which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
This is the second anticipatory bail as by means of first anticipatory bail order dated 20.09.2022, liberty of the applicant was protected till completion of the investigation. Now, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the aforesaid protection may be extended till conclusion of the trial as the present applicant has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail earlier granted in favour of the applicant.
Per contra, Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA has stated that since liberty of the applicant was protected till completion of the investigation and in compliance of the order of this Court, the applicant has not been arrested, therefore, after filing of the charge sheet, he should appear before the learned trial court taking all pleas and grounds, which are available to him along with case laws of the Apex Court, which provide that the person concerned may not be arrested in each and every cases after filing of the charge sheet unless the learned trial court has got any cogent reasons to that effect, therefore, instead of filing second anticipatory bail application, he should approach the learned trial court by filing appropriate application. Sri Goswami has further submitted that if the prayer made by the applicant is acceded to, it would tantamount to the review of earlier order, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
List on 12.04.2023 as fresh to enable the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on the aforesaid objection being raised by the learned AGA."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the dictum of the Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2020) 5 SCC 1, Deepak Kumar Azad @ Pappu vs. The State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 278, Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal Nos.272-273 of 2021) decided on 5.3.2021 and the order dated 21.3.2023 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Centra Bureau of Investigation and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233, by submitting that if the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and has followed all terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail order being granted till the stage of investigation, his liberty may be protected till conclusion of the trial proceedings.
Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-3, which is an order dated 20.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1549 of 2022, granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant, protecting his liberty till conclusion of the investigation. The order dated 20.9.2022 reads as under:
"Heard Sri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.
This anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the applicant (Jitendra Singh Yadavl) apprehending his arrest in FIR/ Crime No.238 of 2021, under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Sushant Golf City, District-Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).
The attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. which has been lodged on 28.06.2021. The main allegation against the present applicant is that for the check period i.e. with effect from 2006 to 2015 the present applicant was earned / received a sum of Rs.41,05,520/- but on that period his expenses are Rs.88,81,765/-. When the applicant was asked to explain his other income which is more than double from the income known to the department, he could not submit his proper explanation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards para-13 of the bail application wherein it has been stated that the applicant has tried to explain his double earnings. He has also informed the department about this detail but as per Sri Agrawal such information has not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. He has further submitted that the present applicant has got proper explanation which he can demonstrate with the Investigation Officer as the investigation is going on as the present applicant is being Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the police department is fully co-operating with the investigation and he shall further co-operate with the investigation, therefore, till completion of the investigation his liberty may be protected. Being a government employee, he may not abscond anywhere.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted, on the basis of instructions, that the present applicant is not co-operating with the investigation nor has submitted proforma form No.1 to 6 showing his entire details relating to the property and also the details of the property of the dependents. Therefore, the charge-sheet has not been filed till date.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has also submitted that if any government employee could not explain his total income, which he has earned during check period, then it shall be treated as the case of disproportionate assets, for which, such employee may be punished in the criminal court. Learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that the Competent Authority has granted sanction of the prosecution against the present applicant.
Be that it may, since the present applicant is a government employee serving on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the police department, therefore, it is expected from him to co-operate with the investigation properly. The applicant is directed to submit the proforma form No. 1 to 6 as required by the Investigating Agency disclosing the complete details relating to movable and immovable property, cash, jewellery etc. of him and his dependents within a period of one week from today. After filling up such form he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.09.2022, at 11:00 a.m. sharp. Thereafter, he shall abide by the instructions and directions of the Investigating Officer regarding the investigation and he shall co-operate with the investigation properly and shall not delay such investigation without having any cogent reasons.
If the applicant does not submit the aforesaid proforma form No. 1 to 6 as required and does not appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.09.2022 at about 11:00 a.m. sharp, the protection so given to him by this order shall be withdrawn and the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to take any appropriate coercive steps against him. In any case, the investigation against the present applicant shall be completed with expedition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the considered opinion that liberty of the present applicant may be protection till filing of the charge-sheet/ police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant, Jitendra Singh Yadav, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation made by a police officer as and when required;
2. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;
4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses;
5. that in case the charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial;
6. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
It is made clear that if the present applicant does not fulfill the conditions so imposed by this Court, the liberty is given to the learned Additional Government Advocate/ State to file any appropriate application against the present applicant before the competent court of law.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally."
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant had appeared before the investigating officer on 28.9.2022 at 11:00 a.m. sharp and participated in the investigation and thereafter, charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel submits that the applicant being a government servant may not think to avoid the process of law and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings in the same manner he has cooperated in the investigation, therefore, his liberty may be protected till conclusion of the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the second anticipatory bail application, but has stated that there is no adverse information/report against the present applicant for his non-cooperation in the investigation.
Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation pursuant to the direction being issued by this Court on 20.9.2022, other material available on record and undertaking of the applicant that he shall further cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail as being a government servant, he cannot think to avoid the process of law, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of trial proceedings, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant-Jitendra Singh Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR/case crime number till conclusion of the trial proceedings on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each before the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that 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;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
5. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
6. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Sachin