High Court · 2025

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No. 3, Varanasi seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2012, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, police station- Rampur, district-Jaunpur. 3-Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1-On receiving several complaints regarding the work done in the financial year 2004-05 under the “Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojana” in district Jaunpur, an enquiry was conducted on the basis of random sampling of work done in two projects by the Anti Corruption Organization. During enquiry, the work done was not found satisfactory. Several irregularities and malpractices etc. were detected. It was also noticed that work was not done in accordance with the guidelines of said scheme.

3.2-Thereafter, on the direction of the State Government, total 41 F.I.Rs. were lodged in different police stations of District Jaunpur against total 249 public servants and 112 private persons making allegations of irregularities, misappropriation, malpractices and embezzlement of public money and foodgrains, etc.

3.3-Year wise details of First Information Reports are as under:- Year 2012 2013 2017 2019 2020 2021 Number of FIR 05 03 01 11 16 05

3.4-The investigation of all the above 41 F.I.Rs. was handed over to the Economic Offences Wing, Varanasi.

3.5-The instant case relates to F.I.R. dated 23.02.2012 was registered against 12 accused persons at police station Rampur, district Jaunpur. 4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the relevant point of time applicant was posted as Village Development Officer. Under SGRY scheme, he was in-charge of work. Regarding the work done in the year 2004-05 under the “Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojana”, F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2012. The applicant is named in the first information report, but no specific role has been assigned to him. Applicant was not summoned by the investigating officer for recording his statement within reasonable time after lodging F.I.R. against him and since last several years, no efforts have been made to arrest the applicant but recently all of sudden, investigating officer is trying to arrest the applicant without any credible material against him, therefore applicant has preferred anticipatory bail but the same has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that fair as well as speedy investigation is also 2 of 5 legal right of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation and trial. 5-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the applicant was also involved with his different role along with other co accused. The applicant was involved in the embezzlement of public fund. The investigation against the applicant is still pending. 6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that:-

6.1-Regarding the work done in the year 2004-05 under the Sampurn Gramin Rojgar Yojna, first information report was lodged after six years in the year 2012.

6.2-No efforts were made by the investigating officer for the last several years to arrest the applicant.

6.3-After about 12 years of lodging of the first information report, now efforts are being made to arrest the applicant.

6.4-It is now a common feature that investigation taken up by the E.O.W. of the State of U.P. is lingering on for an unlimited period on one pretext or the other and after several years there is effort to arrest the accused persons.

6.5-In the present case, no sincere efforts have been made by the officer concerned to conclude the investigation within reasonable period.

6.6-The investigation against the applicant is still pending since 2012.

6.7-This Court is also of the view that parameters for grant of anticipatory bail pre-arrest of the accused and quashing of F.I.R. or charge-sheet stand on different footing.

6.8-There is no material on record to presume that under the facts of the case, there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 3 of 5 7-Object of section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023, 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. 8-In view of the above discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, this Court feels that in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 and order passed on even date (07.05.2023) in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1699 of 2025 (Vijay Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow), the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be allowed. 9-As a fallout and consequence of the above, it is directed that in case applicant is arrested in the above case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of concerned police station or Court concerned, as the case may be till conclusion of the trial, subject to following conditions:- 4 of 5 (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with 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, it will be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application for cancellation of this anticipatory bail order before this Court. 10-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited for 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. The trial court concerned shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Saurabh 5 of 5 SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No. 3, Varanasi seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2012, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, police station- Rampur, district-Jaunpur. 3-Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1-On receiving several complaints regarding the work done in the financial year 2004-05 under the “Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojana” in district Jaunpur, an enquiry was conducted on the basis of random sampling of work done in two projects by the Anti Corruption Organization. During enquiry, the work done was not found satisfactory. Several irregularities and malpractices etc. were detected. It was also noticed that work was not done in accordance with the guidelines of said scheme.

3.2-Thereafter, on the direction of the State Government, total 41 F.I.Rs. were lodged in different police stations of District Jaunpur against total 249 public servants and 112 private persons making allegations of irregularities, misappropriation, malpractices and embezzlement of public money and foodgrains, etc.

3.3-Year wise details of First Information Reports are as under:- Year 2012 2013 2017 2019 2020 2021 Number of FIR 05 03 01 11 16 05

3.4-The investigation of all the above 41 F.I.Rs. was handed over to the Economic Offences Wing, Varanasi.

3.5-The instant case relates to F.I.R. dated 23.02.2012 was registered against 12 accused persons at police station Rampur, district Jaunpur. 4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the relevant point of time applicant was posted as Village Development Officer. Under SGRY scheme, he was in-charge of work. Regarding the work done in the year 2004-05 under the “Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojana”, F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2012. The applicant is named in the first information report, but no specific role has been assigned to him. Applicant was not summoned by the investigating officer for recording his statement within reasonable time after lodging F.I.R. against him and since last several years, no efforts have been made to arrest the applicant but recently all of sudden, investigating officer is trying to arrest the applicant without any credible material against him, therefore applicant has preferred anticipatory bail but the same has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that fair as well as speedy investigation is also 2 of 5 legal right of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation and trial. 5-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the applicant was also involved with his different role along with other co accused. The applicant was involved in the embezzlement of public fund. The investigation against the applicant is still pending. 6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that:-

6.1-Regarding the work done in the year 2004-05 under the Sampurn Gramin Rojgar Yojna, first information report was lodged after six years in the year 2012.

6.2-No efforts were made by the investigating officer for the last several years to arrest the applicant.

6.3-After about 12 years of lodging of the first information report, now efforts are being made to arrest the applicant.

6.4-It is now a common feature that investigation taken up by the E.O.W. of the State of U.P. is lingering on for an unlimited period on one pretext or the other and after several years there is effort to arrest the accused persons.

6.5-In the present case, no sincere efforts have been made by the officer concerned to conclude the investigation within reasonable period.

6.6-The investigation against the applicant is still pending since 2012.

6.7-This Court is also of the view that parameters for grant of anticipatory bail pre-arrest of the accused and quashing of F.I.R. or charge-sheet stand on different footing.

6.8-There is no material on record to presume that under the facts of the case, there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 3 of 5 7-Object of section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023, 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. 8-In view of the above discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, this Court feels that in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 and order passed on even date (07.05.2023) in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1699 of 2025 (Vijay Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow), the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be allowed. 9-As a fallout and consequence of the above, it is directed that in case applicant is arrested in the above case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of concerned police station or Court concerned, as the case may be till conclusion of the trial, subject to following conditions:- 4 of 5 (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with 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, it will be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application for cancellation of this anticipatory bail order before this Court. 10-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited for 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. The trial court concerned shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Saurabh 5 of 5 SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad