Allahabad High Court
Mridul Madhu Kant vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2022
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4552 of 2022 Applicant :- Mridul Madhu Kant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jayendra Singh,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
By means of present third anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 818 off 2019 u/s 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Karwi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence alleged in the F.I.R.
This is third anticipatory bail application as first Anticipatory Bail Application bearing No. 70 of 2020 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2020 which reads as under :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri I.P. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicants in Case Crime No.818 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot.
Presently and bearing in mind the allegations which are levelled which include and assert that huge loss was caused to the public exchequer on account of excess payment being made to the contractor, the Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant no.1 who was admittedly the authorised signatory and was privy to the disbursement of funds. The application at his behest shall stand rejected. Insofar as the applicant no.2 is concerned, it is pointed out from the assertions made in the supplementary affidavit that he had no role to play in the disbursement of funds. The applicant no.2 is stated to be a Junior Engineer presently employed in the Mandi Parishad.
In view thereof and bearing in mind the submissions addressed in which the Court finds prima facie force, let the learned A.G.A. file a reply/obtain instructions in this matter within a period of three weeks.
List thereafter.
Accordingly and in the meanwhile, let the applicant- Ramendra Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the concerned police station subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant will join and participate in each and every aspect of "Investigation" and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency even with regard to "discovery of fact" if and when required so by the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court;
(ii) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
iii) 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 office;
(iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In case of default or breach of any of the aforementioned conditions it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to file an appropriate application before this Court for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail granted."
The second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2767 of 2020 has been rejected vide order dated 1.12.2020, which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA.
The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant on this second anticipatory bail application since the learned counsel has not addressed any submission other than those referred to in the earlier order of the Court. The Court has also not been apprised of any further developments or the stage of investigation.
The application stands dismissed."
Since both the anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by the Hon'ble Judge who has been transferred from this Court to another Court, therefore, the third anticipatory bail application may be heard and disposed of by the regular Court.
Since second anticipatory bail application has been rejected by this Court for the reason that no further development could be shown to the Court, therefore, on the same grounds and stage of investigation the second anticipatory bail application may not be granted. Hence, the specific query was put up to learned counsel to show the further developments. Learned counsel for the applicant has firstly submitted that this is a case wherein the F.I.R. bearing No. 0818 of 2019 u/s 406 and 409 IPC, P.S. Chitrakoot, District Karvi Kotwali Nagar was lodged on 15.11.2019 and since then the investigation is still going on and there is no complaint against the applicant that he is not cooperating with the investigation or adopting any tactic to frustrate the investigation. As a matter of fact, the present applicant is cooperating with the investigation properly. He has also submitted that after rejection of second anticipatory bail application on 1.12.2020 his Department where he is serving vide order dated 14.09.2021 which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 7 to the application, has recovered / realized a sum of Rs. 80390061.00, which is alleged to have been paid excess from M/s Glare Infrastructure Ltd. and this is the main allegation against the present applicant in the F.I.R. that he being privy to the disbursement of the fund has made signatures on such disbursement to such firm. This fact has been considered by this Court while rejecting the first anticipatory bail application on 18.1.2020, therefore, as per learned counsel for the applicant since the alleged excess amount has been recovered from the said firm on 14.9.2021, after the rejection of second anticipatory bail application on 1.12.2020, so, it may be considered as a further development to consider the third anticipatory bail application. Besides, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant that he has embezzled or tried to embezzle such amount or has committed any fraud or forgery against the Department.
Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 6 which is a suspension order issued by the Department against the present applicant on 16.11.2019 and the departmental inquiry is still going on against the applicant and the applicant is cooperating with the departmental inquiry. In the suspension order the allegation against the present applicant is same as has been alleged in the F.I.R. that huge loss was caused to the Public Exchequer on account of excess payment made to the Contractor after the signatures being made by the present applicant on the bill who was privy to the disbursement of the funds. It has nowhere been indicated in the suspension order or in the F.I.R. that the present applicant has usurped or embezzled such amount. Since the amount in question has been recovered form the Contractor in question and the present applicant is cooperating with the investigation and till date no coercive steps of any kind whatsoever has been taken against the present applicant, therefore, in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5191 of 2021 the arrest of the present applicant should not be warranted. The applicant who is serving on the post of Deputy Director, Constructions, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Class-I officer, may not abscond anywhere, may not avoid investigation in any manner whatsoever and may not influence the investigation or witness as he has not committed such thing by how, therefore, his liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the scope of granting third anticipatory bail is very limited and since his second anticipatory bail application was rejected on the ground that no further development was shown to the Court, therefore, his third anticipatory bail application may not be granted. However, on being confronted the learned AGA as to whether any coercive steps have been taken against the present applicant by now, he has informed on the basis of instructions that no coercive action has been taken against the present applicant. On being further confronted as to whether a sum of Rs. 80390061.00 has been recovered from M/s Glare Infrastructure Ltd. for the construction of 'Vishist Mandi Sthal, Karwi, vide letter dated 14.9.2021 (Annexure no. 7), learned AGA submitted that, that letter is matter of record, therefore, he has nothing to say. On being further confronted as to why the investigation has not been complete since November, 2019, the learned AGA has submitted on the basis of instructions that since the issue in question involves serious consequences and not only the Contractor but the other officials may likely to be implicated, therefore, taking due care and precaution the investigating agency would be concluding the investigation at the earliest.
Therefore, Without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the alleged excess amount has been recovered from the Contractor in question on 14.9.2021, there is no allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. that he has himself embezzled any amount of public exchequer, the applicant is cooperating with the investigation properly and no coercive steps of any kind whatsoever have been issued against the applicant, I find these developments as further development to consider the third anticipatory bail application.
Further, considering the contents of allegation of the F.I.R., other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 subject to his cooperation with the investigation inasmuch as in absence of proper cooperation with the investigation no investigation can be conducted and concluded to its logical end.
At the same time it is also expected from the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest strictly in accordance with law.
It is needless to say that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation properly, failing which the protection being given by this order may not be available to him any further and any appropriate application may be moved by the prosecution for taking appropriate action.
Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Mridul Madhu Kant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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 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 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 applicant;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Om.