High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6553 of 2024 Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Mariyam Azmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
From the perusal of the enquiry report and order impugned, prima facie the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have substance and matter requires consideration. Let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within weeks' List this case on 18th January, 2024. thereafter. two In the meanwhile, until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 3rd October, 2023 shall remain stayed and petitioner shall be permitted to discharge his duty and shall be paid remuneration. However, pendency of this petition and interim protection granted hereinabove shall not come in the way of respondent in holding full- fledged enquiry into the matter, and thereafter, appropriate decision shall be taken strictly in compliance of the principles of natural justice." Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit. It is thus urged that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour. In case, applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co- operate in the investigation/trial. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file coutner affidavit. Applicant will have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant Yogendra Kumar Yadav shall be released on ad-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 police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court in this order. Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Arshad
Arguments
Heard Mr. Jamil Ahamad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Yogendra Kumar Yadav, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0328 of 2023, under sections 7 and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Raunapur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 11.10.2023 was lodged by first informant Manoj Kumar Srivastava and was registered as Case Crime No. 0328 of 2023, under sections 7 and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Raunapur, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely, Dharmendra Kumar Singh and Yogendra Kumar Yadav have been nominated as named accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused are alleged to have demanded money from Dharmendra Yadav, Gram Pradhan, Shaheeh for doing Manrega work. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is named in the F.I.R. yet his liberty is liable to be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour. The F.I.R. was lodged on 11.10.2023. However, even though a period of more than 8 and 1/2 months has rolled by, the requisite police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted by the Investigating Officer as yet. Applicant has been co-operating in investigation, therefore, neither non bailable warrant was obtained by Investigating Officer by applicant nor any application was filed by Investigating Officer before Court below for issuance of co-ercive process. The custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for investigating aforementioned case crime number or during the course of trial. Applicant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. As such, liberty of applicant be protected by extending the liberty of anticipatory bail in his favour. It is then submitted that prior to the F.I.R. an enquiry was conducted in respect of allegations made against applicant in the F.I.R. In the aforesaid enquiry the statement of Gram Pradhan was recorded wherein he has denied the allegations so made against applicant in the F.I.R. Copy of the same is on record at page 35 of the paper book. According to learned counsel for applicant, in view of the recital occurring in the F.I.R. disciplinary action was taken against applicant and his appointment was terminated. Feeling aggrieved by above applicant approached this Court by means of WRIT - A No. - 19087 of 2023 (Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others), in which an interim order dated 30.11.2023 was passed. For ready reference the same is reproduced herein under: "The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the enquiry report which has been submitted on 7.10.2023, the enquiry officer himself was not convinced about the charge of any bribe being taken by the petitioner, inasmuch as, petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2023. He submits that though he has been working on contract basis but has been working since 2008 and there has been no complaint regarding work and conduct on the post of Computer Operator.