High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 468 of 2009, under Section 409 IPC and section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Suriyawa, District Bhadohi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2009 but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused on the ground that being Sub Deputy Inspector of School it was his responsibility to verify the work done by co-accused Neelam Singh and co-accused Gram Pradhan, Shailendra Upadhyay but he did not conduct the inspection.

4. He further submitted that when applicant was made accused in the present matter during investigation then he filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7336 of 2012 before this Court and on 18.6.2012 Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay his arrest till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

5. He further submitted that thereafter when charge sheet was filed against the applicant then he challanged the entire proceeding before this Court in application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29701 of 2013 and this Court on 4.9.2013 issued notice to opposite party no. 2 and directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

6. He further submitted that when on 24.1.2017 application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with liberty to the applicant to make an application for discharge then he pursuant to the order dated 24.1.2017 moved discharge application but the same was dismissed on the ground that applicant did not get bail in the present matter and when he challanged the order passed by the court concerned before this Court in another application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31106 of 2023 then same was disposed of on 26.9.2023 with a direction that if applicant shall appear before the court concerned within two weeks then his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. He further submitted that thereafter vide order dated 16.4.2024 further ten days time was given to the applicant to appear before the court concerned and thereafter applicant appeared before the court concerned on 2.5.2025 and since then he is in jail.

7. He further submitted that as during investigation, applicant was not arrested pursuant to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court and there is no allegation that he either received any money illegally or committed any illegality, therefore, considering the fact that he is in jail for last more than a year, he should be enlarged on bail.

8. He further submitted that co-accused Shailendra Upadhaya the then Village Pradhan has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.2.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 57060 of 2022 and on facts case of applicant is on better footing than him.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Divisional Inspector of school and he failed to supervise the work done by other co-accused persons and issued utility certificate but there is no allegation that he either received any bribe or he misappropriated any government fund.

12. Further, it reflects applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused.

13. Further, record also suggests that during investigation by the order of Division Bench of this Court arrest of the applicant was stayed and even after submission of the charge sheet, this Court passed an interim order in his favour.

14. Further in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year and co-accused Shailendra Upadhyay the then Gram Pradhan has already been released on bail by this Court.

15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last more than a year.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Anil Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Ankita

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 468 of 2009, under Section 409 IPC and section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Suriyawa, District Bhadohi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2009 but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused on the ground that being Sub Deputy Inspector of School it was his responsibility to verify the work done by co-accused Neelam Singh and co-accused Gram Pradhan, Shailendra Upadhyay but he did not conduct the inspection.

4. He further submitted that when applicant was made accused in the present matter during investigation then he filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7336 of 2012 before this Court and on 18.6.2012 Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay his arrest till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

5. He further submitted that thereafter when charge sheet was filed against the applicant then he challanged the entire proceeding before this Court in application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29701 of 2013 and this Court on 4.9.2013 issued notice to opposite party no. 2 and directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

6. He further submitted that when on 24.1.2017 application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with liberty to the applicant to make an application for discharge then he pursuant to the order dated 24.1.2017 moved discharge application but the same was dismissed on the ground that applicant did not get bail in the present matter and when he challanged the order passed by the court concerned before this Court in another application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31106 of 2023 then same was disposed of on 26.9.2023 with a direction that if applicant shall appear before the court concerned within two weeks then his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. He further submitted that thereafter vide order dated 16.4.2024 further ten days time was given to the applicant to appear before the court concerned and thereafter applicant appeared before the court concerned on 2.5.2025 and since then he is in jail.

7. He further submitted that as during investigation, applicant was not arrested pursuant to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court and there is no allegation that he either received any money illegally or committed any illegality, therefore, considering the fact that he is in jail for last more than a year, he should be enlarged on bail.

8. He further submitted that co-accused Shailendra Upadhaya the then Village Pradhan has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.2.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 57060 of 2022 and on facts case of applicant is on better footing than him.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Divisional Inspector of school and he failed to supervise the work done by other co-accused persons and issued utility certificate but there is no allegation that he either received any bribe or he misappropriated any government fund.

12. Further, it reflects applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused.

13. Further, record also suggests that during investigation by the order of Division Bench of this Court arrest of the applicant was stayed and even after submission of the charge sheet, this Court passed an interim order in his favour.

14. Further in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year and co-accused Shailendra Upadhyay the then Gram Pradhan has already been released on bail by this Court.

15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last more than a year.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Anil Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Ankita