High Court

Applicant :- Rajeshwar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Srivastava,Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gorakhpur seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2022, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station U.P. Starkta Adhisthan Sector Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant- Inspector Pradeep Kumar Singh got a first information report lodged on 08.02.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant making allegations inter alia that with regard to disproportionate assets of the applicant, an open inquiry was conducted against him, in which it was found that the applicant while serving as a public servant earned total income of Rs. 40,74,848/- from all his legal sources of income during the period determined for inquiry, whereas total expenditure incurred by him on acquisition of assets and maintenance during the said period was found to be Rs. 52,68,768/-, which is disproportionate to his income.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the F.I.R. based on an open inquiry, during check period from 24.02.1982 to 30.09.2015, total income of the applicant from all his legal sources of income was found to be Rs. 40,74,848/- and expenditure incurred by him was found to be Rs. 52,68,768/-, whereas in the investigation, the said figures were found wrong and as per charge sheet, total income and expenditure of the applicant were found to be Rs. 43,23,056/- and Rs. 51,97,030/-. Hence the discrepancies found in the prosecution case is apparent on record. Much emphasis has been given by contending that maximum punishment for the alleged offence is provided up to seven years. The offence is not heinous in nature. The applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation. He also got his statement recorded on 02.05.2023 in the investigation. but the investigating officer ignoring the defence of the applicant, without conducting fair investigation, illegally submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. After submission of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required. Lastly it is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He undertakes that in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he will cooperate with the trial and will not take any unnecessary adjournment in the trial. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Under the facts of the case the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who has accepted notice of this case on 29.04.2025 opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.

6. Object of anticipatory bail application is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

7. 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 his fleeing from justice as well as there is no possibility of tampering the evidence, because in a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant Rajeshwar Singh 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.

9. 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 concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Kashifa

Applicant :- Rajeshwar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Srivastava,Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gorakhpur seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2022, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station U.P. Starkta Adhisthan Sector Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant- Inspector Pradeep Kumar Singh got a first information report lodged on 08.02.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant making allegations inter alia that with regard to disproportionate assets of the applicant, an open inquiry was conducted against him, in which it was found that the applicant while serving as a public servant earned total income of Rs. 40,74,848/- from all his legal sources of income during the period determined for inquiry, whereas total expenditure incurred by him on acquisition of assets and maintenance during the said period was found to be Rs. 52,68,768/-, which is disproportionate to his income.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the F.I.R. based on an open inquiry, during check period from 24.02.1982 to 30.09.2015, total income of the applicant from all his legal sources of income was found to be Rs. 40,74,848/- and expenditure incurred by him was found to be Rs. 52,68,768/-, whereas in the investigation, the said figures were found wrong and as per charge sheet, total income and expenditure of the applicant were found to be Rs. 43,23,056/- and Rs. 51,97,030/-. Hence the discrepancies found in the prosecution case is apparent on record. Much emphasis has been given by contending that maximum punishment for the alleged offence is provided up to seven years. The offence is not heinous in nature. The applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation. He also got his statement recorded on 02.05.2023 in the investigation. but the investigating officer ignoring the defence of the applicant, without conducting fair investigation, illegally submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. After submission of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required. Lastly it is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He undertakes that in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he will cooperate with the trial and will not take any unnecessary adjournment in the trial. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Under the facts of the case the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who has accepted notice of this case on 29.04.2025 opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.

6. Object of anticipatory bail application is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

7. 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 his fleeing from justice as well as there is no possibility of tampering the evidence, because in a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant Rajeshwar Singh 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.

9. 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 concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Kashifa