High Court

"Heard 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 after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that first information report of this case was lodged on 08.04.2022 against five accused persons, namely, Parthraj Singh (present applicant), Ramlal, Tayara Bano, Kamta Prasad and Shripal with regard to embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 5,56,212/- committed in purchase of cemented benches. So far as present applicant is concerned, it is submitted that he is Village Development Officer of Village Sundari and allegation of embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 2,78,106/- was imposed upon him, out of which, Rs. 2,67,000/- has been recovered from him during the course of departmental enquiry but later on, he has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry vide enquiry report dated 30.04.2024 because all the four charges levelled against him were not found true. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.05.2024 of District Development Officer, Sonbhadra, departmental enquiry against the applicant has been dropped. It is also submitted that in the departmental enquiry against co-accused Tayara Bano, who is village pradhan of village Sundari, it has been found that price of benches was worth Rs. 2,40,000/- but she has paid Rs. 2,49,994/-, as such, excess payment of Rs. 9994/- was made by her and accordingly, in exercise of power under Section 95(1)g of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 06.04.2022 directed her to deposit 50% of said amount, i.e., Rs. 4997/- within a week and the said amount has been deposited by her on 11.07.2022. On the said ground, co-accused Tayara Bano has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4969 of 2022 till submission of police report, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the similar relief. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Pursuant to F.I.R. of this case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co- operate with the investigation of this case. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant but could not dipsute the above factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during investigation. In the event of arrest of the applicant Parth Raj 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 :- i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer / investigating 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii)The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. iv) 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 officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for 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 investigating officer of this case 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." 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation and the investigating officer did not collect any additional material against him, however, the investigating officer, without conducting fair investigation, has illegally submitted charged-sheet against the applicant. It is next submitted that the allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 2,78,106/- was levelled against the applicant, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,67,000/- has been deposited by the applicant during the course of departmental enquiry pursuant to order dated 06.04.2022. Thereafter, applicant has been exonerated vide enquiry report dated 30.04.2024. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has not misused the liberty of aforesaid anticipatory bail which was granted on 29.07.2024, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 5-Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-In view of the above, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail during his trial. 7-Accordingly, applicant-Parth Raj Singh is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial, subject to 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. (v) In case, it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file an for cancellation of appropriate application anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 8-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. 9-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Saurabh

"Heard 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 after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that first information report of this case was lodged on 08.04.2022 against five accused persons, namely, Parthraj Singh (present applicant), Ramlal, Tayara Bano, Kamta Prasad and Shripal with regard to embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 5,56,212/- committed in purchase of cemented benches. So far as present applicant is concerned, it is submitted that he is Village Development Officer of Village Sundari and allegation of embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 2,78,106/- was imposed upon him, out of which, Rs. 2,67,000/- has been recovered from him during the course of departmental enquiry but later on, he has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry vide enquiry report dated 30.04.2024 because all the four charges levelled against him were not found true. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.05.2024 of District Development Officer, Sonbhadra, departmental enquiry against the applicant has been dropped. It is also submitted that in the departmental enquiry against co-accused Tayara Bano, who is village pradhan of village Sundari, it has been found that price of benches was worth Rs. 2,40,000/- but she has paid Rs. 2,49,994/-, as such, excess payment of Rs. 9994/- was made by her and accordingly, in exercise of power under Section 95(1)g of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 06.04.2022 directed her to deposit 50% of said amount, i.e., Rs. 4997/- within a week and the said amount has been deposited by her on 11.07.2022. On the said ground, co-accused Tayara Bano has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4969 of 2022 till submission of police report, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the similar relief. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Pursuant to F.I.R. of this case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co- operate with the investigation of this case. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant but could not dipsute the above factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during investigation. In the event of arrest of the applicant Parth Raj 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 :- i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer / investigating 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii)The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. iv) 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 officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for 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 investigating officer of this case 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." 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation and the investigating officer did not collect any additional material against him, however, the investigating officer, without conducting fair investigation, has illegally submitted charged-sheet against the applicant. It is next submitted that the allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 2,78,106/- was levelled against the applicant, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,67,000/- has been deposited by the applicant during the course of departmental enquiry pursuant to order dated 06.04.2022. Thereafter, applicant has been exonerated vide enquiry report dated 30.04.2024. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has not misused the liberty of aforesaid anticipatory bail which was granted on 29.07.2024, therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 5-Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-In view of the above, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail during his trial. 7-Accordingly, applicant-Parth Raj Singh is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial, subject to 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. (v) In case, it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file an for cancellation of appropriate application anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 8-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. 9-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Saurabh