State of U.P. and Another v. Party

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2020 (S.T. No. 598 of 2024), under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Kachhwa, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per allegation, applicant was Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department and his expenses were well above than his known source of his income but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits, in the FIR as per prosecution, his known source of income was 13,61,199/- from the period 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and his expenses were 128% more than from his known source of his income but during investigation Investigating Officer found that actually his known source of income was Rs. 27,86,829/- during check period and his expenses were Rs. 33,72,588/- and therefore, during investigation it was found that his expenses were only 21% beyond his known source of income and this fact itself suggests that on the basis of false allegation of disproportionate income applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually before joining in Minor Irrigation Department 2 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 applicant was Junior Engineer in Fisheries Department and during investigation Investigating Officer did not include his income earned from Fisheries Department and thus committed illegality.

7. He further submits, applicant fully explained his income and expenditure even during investigation before the Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer did not accept the same.

8. He further submits, whether the explanation provided by the applicant is correct or whether the opinion drawn by the Investigating officer is correct it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial. He further submits, even the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

9. He further submits, even during investigation applicant was not arrested although he fully cooperated with the investigation. He further submits, however, charge-sheet against applicant has been filed in the year 2020 but as summons could never be served upon him, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court and when he came to know about pendency of case then in the year 2024 he challenged the proceedings before this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but his application has been dismissed and thereafter he tried to obtain anticipatory bail but during pendency of anticipatory bail of the applicant before this Court the coercive measures were taken against him by the trial court including process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he appeared before the court concerned on 23.07.2025 and since then he is in jail and therefore it cannot be said that he is an absconder.

10. He further submits, as during investigation applicant has not been arrested and he is not an absconder and it is a case of disproportionate income, therefore, it will be travesty of justice, if applicant is not released on bail.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant is a dishonest public servant and his expenses were quite high than his known source of income and it reflects, after the process issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C. applicant appeared before the trial court but could not dispute the fact that during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the 3 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 investigation and he was not arrested by the Investigating Officer.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that when anticipatory bail application was pending before this Court then in the meantime, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR could only be lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

14. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the FIR there was allegation that applicant's expenditure were 128% more than his known source of his income but during investigation it was revealed that his expenditure were more than 21% of his known source of his income. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

16. It is a case of disproportionate income and as per allegation the expenses of the applicant were quite high than his known source of his income but it reflects, the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR was lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

17. Further, from the FIR it reflects, initially there was allegation that expenditure of applicant were more than 128% from his known source of income but during investigation it was revealed that his expenses were only 21% more than of his known source of his income.

18. Further, it also reflects, applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation and Investigating Officer did not propose to arrest him.

19. Further, however, it reflects, applicant is in jail only since 23.07.2025 i.e. for last two months and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against him but it reflects, applicant was availing legal remedy and his anticipatory bail application was pending before this Court when process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that he was not an absconder cannot be ruled out.

20. Further, it is a case disproportionate income and according to the 4 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 applicant before check period he was in Fisheries Department and while calculating his income Investigating Officer did not include his income which he earned from Fisheries Department while he was Junior Engineer. The argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

21. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Rajkumar Ranjan 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.

25. 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.

26. 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. September 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2020 (S.T. No. 598 of 2024), under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Kachhwa, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per allegation, applicant was Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department and his expenses were well above than his known source of his income but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits, in the FIR as per prosecution, his known source of income was 13,61,199/- from the period 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and his expenses were 128% more than from his known source of his income but during investigation Investigating Officer found that actually his known source of income was Rs. 27,86,829/- during check period and his expenses were Rs. 33,72,588/- and therefore, during investigation it was found that his expenses were only 21% beyond his known source of income and this fact itself suggests that on the basis of false allegation of disproportionate income applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually before joining in Minor Irrigation Department 2 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 applicant was Junior Engineer in Fisheries Department and during investigation Investigating Officer did not include his income earned from Fisheries Department and thus committed illegality.

7. He further submits, applicant fully explained his income and expenditure even during investigation before the Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer did not accept the same.

8. He further submits, whether the explanation provided by the applicant is correct or whether the opinion drawn by the Investigating officer is correct it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial. He further submits, even the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

9. He further submits, even during investigation applicant was not arrested although he fully cooperated with the investigation. He further submits, however, charge-sheet against applicant has been filed in the year 2020 but as summons could never be served upon him, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court and when he came to know about pendency of case then in the year 2024 he challenged the proceedings before this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but his application has been dismissed and thereafter he tried to obtain anticipatory bail but during pendency of anticipatory bail of the applicant before this Court the coercive measures were taken against him by the trial court including process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he appeared before the court concerned on 23.07.2025 and since then he is in jail and therefore it cannot be said that he is an absconder.

10. He further submits, as during investigation applicant has not been arrested and he is not an absconder and it is a case of disproportionate income, therefore, it will be travesty of justice, if applicant is not released on bail.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant is a dishonest public servant and his expenses were quite high than his known source of income and it reflects, after the process issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C. applicant appeared before the trial court but could not dispute the fact that during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the 3 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 investigation and he was not arrested by the Investigating Officer.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that when anticipatory bail application was pending before this Court then in the meantime, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR could only be lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

14. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the FIR there was allegation that applicant's expenditure were 128% more than his known source of his income but during investigation it was revealed that his expenditure were more than 21% of his known source of his income. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

16. It is a case of disproportionate income and as per allegation the expenses of the applicant were quite high than his known source of his income but it reflects, the check period was from 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2012 and FIR was lodged in the year 2020 i.e. after eight years.

17. Further, from the FIR it reflects, initially there was allegation that expenditure of applicant were more than 128% from his known source of income but during investigation it was revealed that his expenses were only 21% more than of his known source of his income.

18. Further, it also reflects, applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation and Investigating Officer did not propose to arrest him.

19. Further, however, it reflects, applicant is in jail only since 23.07.2025 i.e. for last two months and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against him but it reflects, applicant was availing legal remedy and his anticipatory bail application was pending before this Court when process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that he was not an absconder cannot be ruled out.

20. Further, it is a case disproportionate income and according to the 4 BAIL No. 29197 of 2025 applicant before check period he was in Fisheries Department and while calculating his income Investigating Officer did not include his income which he earned from Fisheries Department while he was Junior Engineer. The argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

21. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Rajkumar Ranjan 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.

25. 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.

26. 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. September 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad