Devendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Singh, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 336 (2), 340 (2), 61 (2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, & 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.

3. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 01.10.2024 by Inspector Sunil Kumar of S.T.F., Field Unit Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the applicant and 15 other persons on the basis of a recovery memo and arrest of some persons alleging therein that on 30.09.2024 he accompanied with police officials were in the area busy in their work wherein at Tasveer Mahal Chauraha an informer met them and told them that some people are in vehicles standing near Bhamola bridge who are to give mark-sheets to students which has to be used in verification in the village postal services and if they immediately go, they will be apprehended. On this information the informer with other police personnels went to the place and tried to collect public witness who refused and then raided the said three vehicles by surrounding them. The people sitting in the vehicles were found carrying papers. In an Alto car having Registration No. UP20CP6881 the person sitting on the driving seat disclosed his name as Gaurav Chaudhary who disclosed that whenever the mark-sheet used to be given he used to be taken and was given money. The other persons were also enquired who disclosed their names as Abhishek Chaudhary, Priyankul Chaudhary, Hemant Kumar, Sumit Chaudhary, Aham Mishra, Vikal Yadav, Qasim, Suhail, Asif, Sajid Ali, Prashant Kumar, Sakib, Sonu, Deepak and Devendra Kumar Singh. A total of 22 forged mark-sheets were recovered from them. The same were then sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Lab. A total of 22, 03 Alto cars, 01 i-10 car, 01 Honda City and 14 mobile phones were recovered.

4. The accused Vikal informed the police that he is posted as a postman in Mainpuri. He further informed them that Sanjay Kumar Singh Post Superintendent posted in Aligarh was previously posted in Mainpuri at the said post and he used to sometimes drive his vehicle due to which he came in contact with him. In July an advertisement for village postal services was issued for which Sajid has an offer of Rs. One lakh per candidate for verification of their documents. He informed about the same to Sanjay Kumar Singh the Post Superintendent and with him used to verify the said documents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was not arrested from the spot and there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further submitted that the process of verification is done as per a Standing Operating Procedure dated 16.08.2024 issued by the Government of India in which even there is a procedure for verification of the said certificates and mark-sheets from the website of the Education Board concerned. It is further submitted that the applicant was not the sole person responsible for verification of the said compromise. It is submitted that the applicant is a Government servant and is working on the post of Deputy Chief Postmaster-II in District Kanpur Nagar, paragraph 34 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is submitted that till date no departmental enquiry has been initiated against the applicant, paragraph 34 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that co-accused Devendra Kumar Singh has been granted stay of arrest vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18734 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report. It is submitted that the applicant was involved in the present matter as he has verified forged mark-sheets despite there being a procedure of verifying the same but he failed to note that the same were forged documents and to the contrary he verified the same by which the alleged candidates were being tried to give employment on the basis of forged documents. It is submitted that the applicant was a Government servant and was expected to perform his duties with honesty but he with the other co-accused persons had taken money for providing employment to persons on the basis of forged documents and as such he is involved in the matter. It is submitted that bail of co-accused Gaurav Chaudhary has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41216 of 2024 (Gaurav Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.) who was the driver of one of the vehicles who used to transport the alleged documents. It is submitted that the matter is serious in nature and the same is having serious effect on the society and the procedure of appointments as drawn by the Government which are being clearly exercised for monetary considerations. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail be rejected.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The allegations in the matter are serious in nature. Forged documents were provided and were being verified for providing employment to persons on payment of money. The entire system of appointment was thus made a farce by the accused persons. The applicant was also involved in the same. No ground exists for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Singh, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 336 (2), 340 (2), 61 (2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, & 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.

3. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 01.10.2024 by Inspector Sunil Kumar of S.T.F., Field Unit Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the applicant and 15 other persons on the basis of a recovery memo and arrest of some persons alleging therein that on 30.09.2024 he accompanied with police officials were in the area busy in their work wherein at Tasveer Mahal Chauraha an informer met them and told them that some people are in vehicles standing near Bhamola bridge who are to give mark-sheets to students which has to be used in verification in the village postal services and if they immediately go, they will be apprehended. On this information the informer with other police personnels went to the place and tried to collect public witness who refused and then raided the said three vehicles by surrounding them. The people sitting in the vehicles were found carrying papers. In an Alto car having Registration No. UP20CP6881 the person sitting on the driving seat disclosed his name as Gaurav Chaudhary who disclosed that whenever the mark-sheet used to be given he used to be taken and was given money. The other persons were also enquired who disclosed their names as Abhishek Chaudhary, Priyankul Chaudhary, Hemant Kumar, Sumit Chaudhary, Aham Mishra, Vikal Yadav, Qasim, Suhail, Asif, Sajid Ali, Prashant Kumar, Sakib, Sonu, Deepak and Devendra Kumar Singh. A total of 22 forged mark-sheets were recovered from them. The same were then sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Lab. A total of 22, 03 Alto cars, 01 i-10 car, 01 Honda City and 14 mobile phones were recovered.

4. The accused Vikal informed the police that he is posted as a postman in Mainpuri. He further informed them that Sanjay Kumar Singh Post Superintendent posted in Aligarh was previously posted in Mainpuri at the said post and he used to sometimes drive his vehicle due to which he came in contact with him. In July an advertisement for village postal services was issued for which Sajid has an offer of Rs. One lakh per candidate for verification of their documents. He informed about the same to Sanjay Kumar Singh the Post Superintendent and with him used to verify the said documents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was not arrested from the spot and there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further submitted that the process of verification is done as per a Standing Operating Procedure dated 16.08.2024 issued by the Government of India in which even there is a procedure for verification of the said certificates and mark-sheets from the website of the Education Board concerned. It is further submitted that the applicant was not the sole person responsible for verification of the said compromise. It is submitted that the applicant is a Government servant and is working on the post of Deputy Chief Postmaster-II in District Kanpur Nagar, paragraph 34 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is submitted that till date no departmental enquiry has been initiated against the applicant, paragraph 34 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that co-accused Devendra Kumar Singh has been granted stay of arrest vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18734 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report. It is submitted that the applicant was involved in the present matter as he has verified forged mark-sheets despite there being a procedure of verifying the same but he failed to note that the same were forged documents and to the contrary he verified the same by which the alleged candidates were being tried to give employment on the basis of forged documents. It is submitted that the applicant was a Government servant and was expected to perform his duties with honesty but he with the other co-accused persons had taken money for providing employment to persons on the basis of forged documents and as such he is involved in the matter. It is submitted that bail of co-accused Gaurav Chaudhary has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41216 of 2024 (Gaurav Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.) who was the driver of one of the vehicles who used to transport the alleged documents. It is submitted that the matter is serious in nature and the same is having serious effect on the society and the procedure of appointments as drawn by the Government which are being clearly exercised for monetary considerations. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail be rejected.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The allegations in the matter are serious in nature. Forged documents were provided and were being verified for providing employment to persons on payment of money. The entire system of appointment was thus made a farce by the accused persons. The applicant was also involved in the same. No ground exists for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad