High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, 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 18.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 166/120B IPC and Section 7 and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, police station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), U.P. Vigilance Establishment. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that vide letter dated 20.06.2013 of Deputy Secretary Medical Education Section-I, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited was nominated as executing agency for construction of the proposed medical college in Jaunpur. As per DPR, the Government Medical College, Jaunpur is proposed to be constructed in spinning mill premises. The work amounting to about Rs. 27 Crores was done by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Azamgarh in violation of financial rules and without tender. The accused- applicant being the public servant did not follow the orders/instructions of the government and got the work done in an illegal manner with the intention of causing loss to the government money. The money sanctioned by the government from time to time was to utilize within the time prescribed. The work was carried out at a slow pace, resulting the delay in project and loss of government funds because the materials' cost increased due to project delays. If the executing agency had got the work done as per financial rules with planning and commitment, the work could have been completed in time. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is posted as Additional Project Manager, who took charge of the project in question on 04.01.2017, and at that time, construction work of the project was already handed over to M/s Tata Projects Limited vide letter of General Manager, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow dated 30.10.2015, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be liable in any manner. It is also submitted that investigating ofÏcer has not conducted the investigation properly. Co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh has been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail. On the aforesaid stand of the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. was granted time to file counter afÏdavit on behalf of the State. Accordingly, State has filed counter afÏdavit dated 07.11.2024 mentioning inter alia following facts:- i- The civil work was of Rs. 4,00,30,29,000/- and the electricity work was of Rs. 1,53,46,28,000/-. ii- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow has authorized the contract to M/s Tata Projects Limited, Mithona Towers, Sikandrabad, 500003, Telangana to the tune of Rs. 3,34,39,03,000/-. iii- The applicant has taken charge as an Additional Project Manager on 04.01.2017 for completion of electric works. After taking charge, the applicant has disbursed an amount of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- on 07.03.2017 (i.e. on same day) and Rs. 6,00,00,000/- on 25.03.2017 as an advance payment without any bank guarantee. iv- The tender was allotted to one C.G.S. & Company on 28.02.2017. The applicant has disbursed the aforesaid amounts without any bank guarantee. v- The Director of C.G.S. & Company has sent a letter dated 06.02.2017 to the Additional Project Manager (applicant) disclosing the fact that the measurement book (M.B.) is under process. vi- The works have been allotted to C.G.S. & Company on 28.02.2017 but in order to give undue benefit to the aforesaid company, the Additional Project Manager (applicant) has disbursed the aforesaid amounts, i.e., Rs. 2,70,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- in favour of C.G.S. & Company on the very same day. vii- The accused/applicant-Manoj Kumar was the Additional Project Manager in U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow since 04.01.2017 for construction of Medical College, Jaunpur and he has been assigned for completion of electric work not for civil work. viii- The tender was allotted to one M/s C.G.S. & Company but the comparison of the quotation was done with one unknown M/s Eagles, Krishna Janak Vihar, Anandpuri, Kanpur despite the fact that the quotation notice was never ever invited from M/s Eagles, Krishna Janak Vihar, Anandpuri, Kanpur. The quotation notice was never submitted and by which mode the quotation was served or given, the same is not on record. The rate of all the three quotations were found to be same. The applicant has invited tenders from (i) M/s Electro Power Solutions, (ii) M/s P.G. Traders (iii) M/s C.G.S. & Company, and (iv) M/s Vishal Contractors. The tender was not invited from M/s Eagles, Kanpur, the same was illegally included in the comparative chart. ix- The proprietor of the firms, namely, M/s Eagles and M/s C.G.S. & Companies is the same person. According to the rules, the proprietor or the partners of the above three firms have to be different and different quotations have to be invited. x- The proprietor of M/s C.G.S. & Company has been given advance payment on 06.02.2017 without allocation of work as the work tender was not allotted to M/s C.G.S. & Company on 06.02.2017. On the letter dated 06.02.2017 sent by M/s C.G.S. & Company to the applicant, he has allocated the funds and the same was disbursed on 07.03.2017 and even endorsement was made without any date on it. xi- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow has allotted the funds to Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad for construction of Rajkiya Allopathic Medical College, Jaunpur to the tune of Rs. 3,34,39,03,000/-, out of which, Rs. 36,46,83,895.18 was allotted for electricity work, but the Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad has only completed the electricity work to the tune of Rs. 6,40,98,534.26 and the pending electricity work to the tune of Rs. 29,19,08,679.88 was not completed. Pressing the above facts, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that as on date, there is no material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in matter of co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh, investigating ofÏcer did not bring on record the correct facts, hence possibility of his collusion with co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that Mr. Yogesh Pawar, the Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow had filed afÏdavit in the case of co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh, on the limited issue whether regulations of the Public Works Department are applicable to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow or not. It is also pointed out that investigating ofÏcer has changed and new investigating ofÏcer has elicited the truth. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the prosecution case, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant, hence this Anticipatory Bail Application is liable to be rejected. In reply to the counter afÏdavit of the State, the applicant has filed rejoinder afÏdavit dated 09.11.2024 and on perusal of the same, I find that applicant has given evasive reply. In the rejoinder afÏdavit, there is no specific denial of the facts brought on record by the State by means of counter afÏdavit as noted above. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and even a little difference between two cases may alter the entire aspect of the matter. Object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 can-not 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, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. 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 it will not effect merit of the case. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, 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 18.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 166/120B IPC and Section 7 and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, police station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), U.P. Vigilance Establishment. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that vide letter dated 20.06.2013 of Deputy Secretary Medical Education Section-I, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited was nominated as executing agency for construction of the proposed medical college in Jaunpur. As per DPR, the Government Medical College, Jaunpur is proposed to be constructed in spinning mill premises. The work amounting to about Rs. 27 Crores was done by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Azamgarh in violation of financial rules and without tender. The accused- applicant being the public servant did not follow the orders/instructions of the government and got the work done in an illegal manner with the intention of causing loss to the government money. The money sanctioned by the government from time to time was to utilize within the time prescribed. The work was carried out at a slow pace, resulting the delay in project and loss of government funds because the materials' cost increased due to project delays. If the executing agency had got the work done as per financial rules with planning and commitment, the work could have been completed in time. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is posted as Additional Project Manager, who took charge of the project in question on 04.01.2017, and at that time, construction work of the project was already handed over to M/s Tata Projects Limited vide letter of General Manager, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow dated 30.10.2015, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be liable in any manner. It is also submitted that investigating ofÏcer has not conducted the investigation properly. Co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh has been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail. On the aforesaid stand of the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. was granted time to file counter afÏdavit on behalf of the State. Accordingly, State has filed counter afÏdavit dated 07.11.2024 mentioning inter alia following facts:- i- The civil work was of Rs. 4,00,30,29,000/- and the electricity work was of Rs. 1,53,46,28,000/-. ii- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow has authorized the contract to M/s Tata Projects Limited, Mithona Towers, Sikandrabad, 500003, Telangana to the tune of Rs. 3,34,39,03,000/-. iii- The applicant has taken charge as an Additional Project Manager on 04.01.2017 for completion of electric works. After taking charge, the applicant has disbursed an amount of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- on 07.03.2017 (i.e. on same day) and Rs. 6,00,00,000/- on 25.03.2017 as an advance payment without any bank guarantee. iv- The tender was allotted to one C.G.S. & Company on 28.02.2017. The applicant has disbursed the aforesaid amounts without any bank guarantee. v- The Director of C.G.S. & Company has sent a letter dated 06.02.2017 to the Additional Project Manager (applicant) disclosing the fact that the measurement book (M.B.) is under process. vi- The works have been allotted to C.G.S. & Company on 28.02.2017 but in order to give undue benefit to the aforesaid company, the Additional Project Manager (applicant) has disbursed the aforesaid amounts, i.e., Rs. 2,70,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- in favour of C.G.S. & Company on the very same day. vii- The accused/applicant-Manoj Kumar was the Additional Project Manager in U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow since 04.01.2017 for construction of Medical College, Jaunpur and he has been assigned for completion of electric work not for civil work. viii- The tender was allotted to one M/s C.G.S. & Company but the comparison of the quotation was done with one unknown M/s Eagles, Krishna Janak Vihar, Anandpuri, Kanpur despite the fact that the quotation notice was never ever invited from M/s Eagles, Krishna Janak Vihar, Anandpuri, Kanpur. The quotation notice was never submitted and by which mode the quotation was served or given, the same is not on record. The rate of all the three quotations were found to be same. The applicant has invited tenders from (i) M/s Electro Power Solutions, (ii) M/s P.G. Traders (iii) M/s C.G.S. & Company, and (iv) M/s Vishal Contractors. The tender was not invited from M/s Eagles, Kanpur, the same was illegally included in the comparative chart. ix- The proprietor of the firms, namely, M/s Eagles and M/s C.G.S. & Companies is the same person. According to the rules, the proprietor or the partners of the above three firms have to be different and different quotations have to be invited. x- The proprietor of M/s C.G.S. & Company has been given advance payment on 06.02.2017 without allocation of work as the work tender was not allotted to M/s C.G.S. & Company on 06.02.2017. On the letter dated 06.02.2017 sent by M/s C.G.S. & Company to the applicant, he has allocated the funds and the same was disbursed on 07.03.2017 and even endorsement was made without any date on it. xi- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow has allotted the funds to Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad for construction of Rajkiya Allopathic Medical College, Jaunpur to the tune of Rs. 3,34,39,03,000/-, out of which, Rs. 36,46,83,895.18 was allotted for electricity work, but the Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad has only completed the electricity work to the tune of Rs. 6,40,98,534.26 and the pending electricity work to the tune of Rs. 29,19,08,679.88 was not completed. Pressing the above facts, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that as on date, there is no material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in matter of co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh, investigating ofÏcer did not bring on record the correct facts, hence possibility of his collusion with co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that Mr. Yogesh Pawar, the Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow had filed afÏdavit in the case of co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh @ R.P. Singh, on the limited issue whether regulations of the Public Works Department are applicable to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow or not. It is also pointed out that investigating ofÏcer has changed and new investigating ofÏcer has elicited the truth. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the prosecution case, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant, hence this Anticipatory Bail Application is liable to be rejected. In reply to the counter afÏdavit of the State, the applicant has filed rejoinder afÏdavit dated 09.11.2024 and on perusal of the same, I find that applicant has given evasive reply. In the rejoinder afÏdavit, there is no specific denial of the facts brought on record by the State by means of counter afÏdavit as noted above. This Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and even a little difference between two cases may alter the entire aspect of the matter. Object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 can-not 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, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. 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 it will not effect merit of the case. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad