High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Brajesh Narayan Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ajay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1.Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. In view of the proposed order, the notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Brajesh Narayan Srivastava) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.1212 of 2013, under Sections 409, 419, 420 & 120- B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

5. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that he could not receive instructions in the matter, therefore, he may be given some reasonable time to seek instructions in the matter.

6. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.8 onwards of the bail application to show that the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, as the orders of co- accused have been annexed collectively as Annexure No.8 with this bail application. Therefore, on the basis of the principles of parity, the present applicant is also entitled for the same benefit. Shri Tripathi has also stated that the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the other co-accused persons inasmuch as two accused persons, namely, Ram Daras Prasad and Naresh Kumar Mishra are the named accused persons whereas the present applicant as well as Rajendra Prasad and Subhash Chandra Gupta are not named in the F.I.R. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he is a retired employee of 70 years from the post of General Manager, U.P. Jal Nigam in the year 2015. He is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. He has stated that against some accused persons the charge-sheet has been filed but no charge-sheet has been filed in the case of the present applicant and investigation is pending.

7. Shri Tripathi has stated that the present applicant is having criminal history of two cases bearing FIR No.RC2202012E001 dated 02.01.2012 under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the present applicant has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure No.3) and Complaint Case No.95 of 2019 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Pramod Kumar Bhukesh and others) Crime No.ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2012, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station-Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, wherein the present applicant has also been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide orders dated 09.01.2023, 08.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 (Annexure No.4), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail. The present applicant has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that if his liberty is protected, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, therefore, his liberty may be protected in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 9.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicant by reiterating that he could not receive instructions in the matter.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that the present applicant is not named in the impugned F.I.R.; the present applicant is 70 years of age; the co-accused persons, namely, Ram Daras Prasad, Naresh Kumar Mishra, Rajendra Prasad and Subhash Chandra Gupta have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court (Annexure No.8); the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk, the criminal history shown against the present applicant, he has been granted bail and he has not misused the liberty of bail; the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Brajesh Narayan Srivastava) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of investigation and filing of the police report on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.02.2025 at 11:00 a.m. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall further appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called to cooperate in the investigation till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the application being filed by the State. (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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. In view of the aforesaid terms, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Brajesh Narayan Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ajay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1.Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. In view of the proposed order, the notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Brajesh Narayan Srivastava) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.1212 of 2013, under Sections 409, 419, 420 & 120- B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

5. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has informed that he could not receive instructions in the matter, therefore, he may be given some reasonable time to seek instructions in the matter.

6. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.8 onwards of the bail application to show that the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, as the orders of co- accused have been annexed collectively as Annexure No.8 with this bail application. Therefore, on the basis of the principles of parity, the present applicant is also entitled for the same benefit. Shri Tripathi has also stated that the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the other co-accused persons inasmuch as two accused persons, namely, Ram Daras Prasad and Naresh Kumar Mishra are the named accused persons whereas the present applicant as well as Rajendra Prasad and Subhash Chandra Gupta are not named in the F.I.R. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he is a retired employee of 70 years from the post of General Manager, U.P. Jal Nigam in the year 2015. He is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. He has stated that against some accused persons the charge-sheet has been filed but no charge-sheet has been filed in the case of the present applicant and investigation is pending.

7. Shri Tripathi has stated that the present applicant is having criminal history of two cases bearing FIR No.RC2202012E001 dated 02.01.2012 under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the present applicant has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure No.3) and Complaint Case No.95 of 2019 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Pramod Kumar Bhukesh and others) Crime No.ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2012, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station-Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, wherein the present applicant has also been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide orders dated 09.01.2023, 08.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 (Annexure No.4), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail. The present applicant has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that if his liberty is protected, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, therefore, his liberty may be protected in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 9.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicant by reiterating that he could not receive instructions in the matter.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that the present applicant is not named in the impugned F.I.R.; the present applicant is 70 years of age; the co-accused persons, namely, Ram Daras Prasad, Naresh Kumar Mishra, Rajendra Prasad and Subhash Chandra Gupta have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court (Annexure No.8); the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk, the criminal history shown against the present applicant, he has been granted bail and he has not misused the liberty of bail; the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Brajesh Narayan Srivastava) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of investigation and filing of the police report on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the present applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.02.2025 at 11:00 a.m. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall further appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called to cooperate in the investigation till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the application being filed by the State. (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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. In view of the aforesaid terms, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench