Allahabad High Court
Sushila Devi vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93028 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5216 of 2024 Applicant :- Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Pandey,Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant before this court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2019, under Section 120B IPC and Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
Brief facts of the case which are required to be mentioned are that with regard to irregularities committed in the appointments of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi in the year 2005-2009, an open enquiry was ordered by the State Government and on basis of facts mentioned in paragraph no. 3.21 and 3.22 of the enquiry report, first information report was lodged on 14.11.2019 for the offence under Sections 120B IPC and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Kapil Muni Karwariya, Sushila Devi (present applicant), Smt. Madhupati and Shripal. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on 13.11.2020 against all the aforesaid named accused persons under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC, on which, concerned Court below took cognizance on 23.11.2020 and summoned them to face trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the year 2000-05, the applicant was holding the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi. She participated in the proceedings of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi. Mr. Ajay Rai, the then Additional Chief Officer of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi conducted every work of Zila Panchayat. In the year 2009, the appointment of Class IV employees, Clerk and Sweeper was done by selection process and vacancy was notified in the daily newspaper. The applicant has no effective role in the said appointment. By the Government Order dated 09.08.2004, restriction for appointment has been withdrawn and after that appointment of employees concerned was done in the year 2005. The complaint was filed in the matter after 07 years. It is next submitted that no irregularity has been done in the appointment of the employees. It is also submitted that elected member of the Zila Panchayat is not a public servant, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State submits that after submission of charge-sheet on 13.11.2020, the applicant was absconding and has preferred this application on 20.02.2024 after 03 years and 03 months from the date of submitting the charge-sheet. He upon instructions further submits that applicant is a woman with a vicious mentality and she by adopting a pick and choose policy alongwith other co-accused and arbitrarily not discharging the responsibility of her position made appointments without the permission of the Government misusing her position adopting corrupt practice with intention of benefiting its people. He further pointed out that the applicant and other co-accused in collusion with each other made appointment on 08 posts of Clerk against 04 vacant posts of Clerk without permission of the State Government and candidature of the several candidates, who scored higher marks was rejected and the candidate, who was not eligible, was included in the waiting list.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that charge-sheet has been filed on 13.11.2020 but neither copy of the charge-sheet nor the order-sheet of the trial Court has been filed by the applicant. From the affidavit filed in support of this anticipatory bail application, it is not clear that what order has been passed by the trial Court for the last three and a half years. Object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Shubham