Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 360 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant- Vinay Kumar Maurya is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.275 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC Police Station- Kotwali, District- Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an contractual Assistant Programme Officer (in short APO) and thus he is not a public servant. The only allegation against the applicant is that he has fraudulently feed the data in master role without any authorization. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the the work of APO is only monitoring of information and the APO cannot give any financial approval and he is not signatory authority. No disclosed offence is made out against the applicant. To give the colour of criminality to the dispute between the parties present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. Although the applicant has criminal history, which has clearly been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant is paragraph no. 12. Further submission is that the applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed anticipatory bail application and submitted that as per statement of first informant- Praveen Kumar Shukla recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that earlier the work allotted was not completed, therefore, I.D. of of the applicant was closed but with the collusion of the one Dinesh Kumar Maurya, he again opened his I.D. It has also been submitted that the applicant fraudulently added the name of 600 labourers and 8400 days Manav Divas thereafter an amount of Rs. 16,85, 586/- was also deposited without any authorization. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed anticipatory bail application on the ground that allegation against the applicant is serious in nature. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail application.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is not made out. The prayer for anticipatory bail application is refused.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appear before the court below and apply for bail, then bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021. In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.
The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022 Anuj Singh