P.N. Singh v. State of U.P. and Another). For ready reference, the order dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110443 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6062 of 2024 Applicant :- Gyanprakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Gyanprakash seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 166, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), U.P. Vigilance Establishment during the pendency of investigation. 4. Record shows that an FIR dated 20.07.2023 was lodged by first informant-Hawaldar Singh Yadav and was registered as Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 166, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), U.P. Vigilance Establishment. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely - (1) Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh (the then Project Manager, (2) Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh, (3) Dr. Shiv Prakash (the then designated Nodal Officer), (4) Manoj Kumar (the then Additional Project Manager), (5) Gyan Prakash (the then Accountant, Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Power Unit, Varanasi and (6) Mohd. Intikhab Alam (Manager, M/s Tata Project Ltd.) have been nominated as named accused. 5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that named co-accused Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 13317 of 2023 (Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another). For ready reference, the order dated 09.04.2024 is reproduced herein under:- "Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 166, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), U.P. Vigilance Establishment, during the pendency of the investigation. As per the prosecution case in brief, vide letter dated 20.06.2013 of Deputy Secretary Medical Education Section-I, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited was nominated as executing agency for the construction of the proposed medical college in Jaunpur. As per DPR, the Government Medical College, Jaunpur is proposed to be constructed in spinning mill premises after remaining old construction and machines. The work costing about Rs. 27 Crores was done by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Azamgarh, in violation of financial rules and without tender. The applicant- accused being in the category of a public servant, did not follow the orders/instructions of the government and got the work done in an illegal manner with the intention of causing loss to the government money. The money sanctioned by the government from time to time, was utilized within time period. The work was carried out at a slow pace, resulting the delay in project and loss of government funds because the material cost increased due to project delays. If the executing agency had got the work done as per financial rules with planning and commitment, the work could have been completed on time. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that vide Government Order dated 12.01.2015, final approval has been recorded for establishing State Allopathic Medical College at Jaunpur. Thereafter on 23.10.2015 Manager of Rajkiya Nirman Nigam issued office order granting technical approval to all the projects. The applicant took charge of Assistant Project Manager on 25.01.2016 in U.P. Nirman Nigam and thereafter, he was looking after the said construction work. It is next submitted that main allegation in the matter is that work order was issued without inviting tender and the construction work in question was not completed within time. So far as first allegation about non-inviting tender/quotations is concerned, it is argued that everything was finalized in the year 2015 and at that time, applicant was not posted in U.P. Nirman Nigam as Project Manager of the project in question, because he joined the said post on 25.01.2016. So far as non-completing the project in question within time is concerned, it is argued that the said allegation is also not sustainable against the applicant because on account of delay in construction, the work of the project was already handed over to M/s TATA Project Ltd. on 30.10.2015. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act also whereas basic ingredients to constitute the said offence are lacking in this case. It is also submitted that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and his case is distinguishable from co- accused Rajendra Prasad Singh. He has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation. Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the light of prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant took the charge of Assistant Protect Manager of the project in question after 25.01.2016 and at that time construction work of the project was already handed over to M/s TATA Projects Ltd. on 30.10.2015. Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. In the event of arrest of the applicant Padmanath Singh @ P.N. Singh, involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the following conditions :- 1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 2) 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) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. 4) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts , the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed." 6. With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused, who has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. There is no such distinguishing feature, on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused, who has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, so as to deny him the benefit of anticipatory bail. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 09.04.2024 of aforementioned co-accused, the liberty of present applicant is also liable to be protected by this Court by extending him the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant has been co-operating with the investigation, therefore, no coercive process has been issued against applicant. The custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for investigating aforementioned case crime number. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. In case, the applicant is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the investigation/trial. 8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguishing feature from the record so as to distinguish the case of present applicant from aforementioned co-accused Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh, who has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, so as to deny him the benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 09.04.2024 pertaining to co-accused Padm Nath Singh @ P.N. Singh, the applicant is also liable to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, in the absence of any such circumstance having been pointed by the learned A.G.A. necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of investigation, there is no justifiable ground so as to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to applicant and coupled with the fact that FIR giving rise to present application for anticipatory bail was lodged on 20.07.2023 and the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted till date, the clean antecedents of applicant, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application for anticipatory bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the present applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) the applicant will make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (ii) the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 12. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Vinay