High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on 27.07.2023 Delivered on 16.08.2023 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163860 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5276 of 2023 Applicant :- Syed Saeed Mustafa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi,Prateek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.213 of 2006, under Sections 34, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)D and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. According to prosecution version, in the year 1999 the Government of India has launched a scheme ‘Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana.’ for the welfare of the families living below poverty line. It was alleged that in the said scheme during the year 2003-2004, several irregularities were committed in publication of books and purchase of other related material. In enquiry, it was found that all the materials were purchased from ‘Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh’ by the Chief Development Officer, the Project Director and other officials by taking aid of the Government Order dated 19.07.1976, without inviting any tender/quotations, whereas, in the said Government Order, it was stated that said order is applicable to purchase made from panchayat industries. It was alleged that the Chief Development Officer, District Kaushambi and his associates have interpreted the Government order dated 19.07.1976 and the Order dated 08.02.1996, issued by Director Women Welfare, in wrong way and committed financial irregularities and caused loss of Rs. 21,85,000/- to the public exchequer. Certain other allegations were also levelled and it was stated that the supplied material was of low quality. According to prosecution, the then Chief Development Officer Arvind Singh, Project Director R.P. Yadav, accountant Vijay Kumar Misra, Nazir Saiyad Moh. Mustufa (applicant) and Arvind Kumar, Manager Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh have flouted the Government orders regarding purchase of printed material and other articles and committed cheating, breach of trust and thereby caused loss of Rs.21,85,000/- to the State exchequer.
Legal Reasoning
that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. 6. It is further submitted that investigation is already complete and charge- sheet has been filed in the court and thus, the applicant is no more required for investigation. It was pointed out that co-accused Arvind Singh, the then Chief Development Officer, has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings and that application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 but against that order, co-accused Arvind Singh has filed S.L.P. No.9355 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, it has been directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The applicant has filed a writ petition for quashing of FIR, wherein, it was directed by this Court that applicant shall not be arrested till the conclusion of investigation. It was submitted that applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 10.05.2023 and he has never misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail. Referring to report of departmental enquiry, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & ANR. 2020 9 SCC 636. It was submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail he would co-operate during trial and would obey the conditions of bail. 3 of 5 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that at the relevant time, applicant was working as Nazir and he was involved in purchase of the printed material and other articles and that various financial irregularities and illegalities were committed by applicant and co-accused persons and thereby, they have caused loss of Rs.21,85,000/- to the public exchequer. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 10. In the instant case, at the relevant time applicant was working as ‘Nazir’. The allegation against applicant and co-accused persons, including the Chief Development Officer, is that the they were involved in purchase of printed material and other articles by flouting the appropriate Government orders and without inviting tenders and committed financial irregularities, whereas, the case of the applicant is that at the time of incident, he was merely working as Urdu translator and he was given additional charge of ‘Nazir’ and that he has merely prepared the note sheet at the direction of the Chief Development officer. It is also stated that alleged purchase of the material was made in accordance with rules and the Government orders dated 19.06.2017 and 08.02.1996. In this connection case of prosecution is that the said Government orders were interpreted in a wrong way. It was shown that co-accused Rajendra Prasad, who was Project Director has been exonerated during departmental proceedings. During investigation, arrest of applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. The case pertains to the year 2006 and the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2020. 4 of 5 Considering submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Syed Saeed Mustafa in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 100,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned with the following conditions :- (i). The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (vi). 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.08.2023 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5
Arguments
4. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas, there is no credible evidence against him. At the relevant time the applicant was working as Urdu translator and he was given additional charge of ‘Nazir’. The applicant was not authorised to make any purchase. The applicant has merely prepared a note sheet on the direction of the Chief Development officer. Even otherwise all the material was printed and purchased as per the Government orders, applicable at that time. As per Government Orders, the committee for procurement of material comprises Chief Development officer, Finance controller and Project Director. The applicant is not a member of the said committee. 5. It is further submitted that regarding alleged irregularities, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the co-accused Rajendra Prasad Yadav and the enquiry officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, found that only the purchase of materials worth Rs.21,85,000/- was without following financial procedure and without inviting tender/quotations. After the said inquiry report, co-accused Rajendra Prasad Yadav has submitted his representation. The competent authority after being satisfied by the same, held that co-accused Rajendra Prasad Yadav was innocent and he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceedings and thus, the department 2 of 5 proceedings were closed. The copy of proceedings of department proceedings and consequent order has been annexed as Annexure-14 & 15 to the application. While said departmental proceedings were going on, the instant criminal proceedings were initiated against applicant and others, which is nothing but abuse of the process of court. The reply submitted by the applicant in relation to inquiry was also referred. Learned Senior Advocate has referred facts of the matter and several Government orders and report of departmental proceedings and submitted