Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11424 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai,Jyoti Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2009, under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Gagaha, District-Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶3It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The first information report was lodged by a resident of village by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant and three co-accused persons have misused public funds of Rs.16,00,000/- by withdrawing the same from the account of Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation, it was found that applicant has expensed only an amount of Rs.2148/- against public work. During departmental inquiry, applicant was exonerated. The Investigating Officer has moved application for grant of sanction for prosecution but the District Sugarcane Officer, Gorakhpur has refused to grant sanction. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Smt. Israwati Devi, who was the village Pradhan, and co-accused Ramashankar Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail. It was also shown that proceedings against co-accused Ram Lal have been quashed by this Court and proceedings in respect of co-accused Ramashankar Singh and Smt. Israwati Devi, have been stayed by this Court. It was also stated that investigation is pending since the year 2009. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused, Smt. Israwati Devi and Ramashankar Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶5It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶6In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶7The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶8In the event of arrest of the applicant-Vinod Kumar Singh in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 30.11.2023/Aditya High Court of Judicature at Allahabad