Allahabad High Court
Sushila Devi vs State Of U.P. on 26 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157711 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7061 of 2024 Applicant :- Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
The instant Second Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2019, under Sections 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5216 of 2024.
Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that with regard to irregularities committed in the appointments in 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 Section 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 was submitted on 13.11.2020 against all the aforesaid named accused persons under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of 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.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant second anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the applicant totally on the new legal grounds, which were not raised at the time of consideration of the first anticipatory bail application. In support of his submissions, he further argued that the matter relates to selection of Class III employees in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi in the year 2004-05. At that relevant point of time, the applicant had been a member of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and she being scheduled caste was also one of the member of the Selection Committee but as per the enquiry report of the State Government itself, the applicant did not sign on merit list. So far as issue of increasing the number of vacancies is concerned, he further pointed out that in the advertisement dated 17.11.2004 which was published in Dainik Jagran newspaper, it was mentioned that the vacancies may decrease or increase, which is also the sole domain of the Chairman of the Selection Committee and for the said allegation, the applicant cannot be made liable. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the present case, first information report with regard to said selection of the year 2004-05 has been registered after an inordinate delay of 15 years on 14.11.2019, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was illegally submitted against the applicant on 13.11.2020 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC, whereas on the day of registration of the above mentioned first information report, Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was already repealed w.e.f. 26.07.2018. Lastly, he submits that the applicant has been made scapegoat without any fault of her. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit. Under the facts of the case the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that on the charge-sheet, concerned Court below took cognizance on 23.11.2020 and on non-appearance of the applicant before the trial Court, bailable warrants were issued against her and non-bailable warrant has also been issued against her on 02.05.2024.
Here it is relevant to mention that notice of this case was given in the office of Government Advocate, High Court on 16.07.2024 but neither any objection nor counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Vide order dated 18.09.2024, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State was allowed a week's time to seek instruction or to file counter affidavit regarding the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, but today on the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. has apprised the Court that the said order dated 18.09.2024 was communicated by the office of Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad to Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi through letter no. 25386B/Allahabad/dated 20.09.2024 but office of Government Advocate has not received any response from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2024 but the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant was not raised at that time. I also find that the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter as pointed out on behalf of the applicant have also not been disputed from the side of State.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice as well as reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial particularly considering the fact that Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was already repealed w.e.f. 26.07.2018 and case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Kapil Muni Karwariya and Ajay Kumar Rai.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Sushila Devi involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :-
(i)That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
(ii) 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 tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.
It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to 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 concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Shubham