Rakesh Veer Singh vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1177 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 
RESERVED
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19201 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Rakesh Veer Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Singh,R.K.Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the accused-applicant, Rakesh Veer Singh in case crime no.45 of 2005, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 472, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(i)(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail.

I have heard the learned counsel Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the applicant, the learned AGA Shri Sudhir Mehrotra for the State and have gone through the entire record.

In this case the first bail application no.7526 of 2006 of the accused-applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.6.2007, passed by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J, and the second bail application no.16801 of 2007 was rejected by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J vide order dated 10.3.2010.

The prosecution case in a nutshell is that a first information report was lodged on 19.1.2005 at 21:05 hours in respect of the time of incident not known with the allegation that the applicant and other accused persons have grabbed the land belonging to the State which worth several crores of rupees. The allegation against the accused-applicant is that he was a Collection Ameen of the Revenue Department and in connivance with the prime accused Motilal Goyal issued fake rent receipts and other revenue documents of khasra-khatauni and Jamabandi. The applicant has committed fraud in the land revenue record and thus committed offence under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 472, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(i)(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

Certain arguments on merit raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present third bail application, that neither he was involved, nor he was concerned in any act of forgery for the issuance of receipts to Motilal Goyal, who is said to have obtained receipts from the applicant by producing old receipts issued by earlier Collection Ameen. The amount obtained as revenue from the co-accused Motilal Goyal had already been deposited by the applicant. The work of the Collection Ameen is only to collect the land revenue and other government dues as and when tehsildar directs. The applicant has no authority to prepare khasra-khatauni as alleged in the first information report. The land revenue collected by the applicant and the receipts thereof was bonafide issued by him and the money collected therefrom duly deposited by him in the Ameen Account. The applicant is not aware that the name of Motilal Goyal and his relatives have been entered in the revenue records fraudulently. The applicant has no concern with the fraudulent act of Motilal Goyal as he has joined his services in the year of 2004. The applicant had joined his services only few months before the alleged incident, hence he cannot be named as conspirator. The applicant is not at all responsible for any fraud or misappropriation as the khasra and khatauni are maintained by the Lekhpal concerned. No case under the corruption act or even under the penal provisions have been made out against him. The trial has yet not commenced and the applicant is languishing in jail since April, 2005, hence his pretrial detention is violative of fundamental rights. The other accused persons have already been released on bail by this court and therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is absolutely innocent person and on account of his long incarceration in jail he is entitled to be released on bail.

Per contra, the learned AGA has filed a supplementary affidavit, annexing the entire copy of the order sheet of the present case and has vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence, due to the collusion and conspiracy of the applicant and other accused persons the innocent people have been deprived of their whole earning and has caused a huge loss to the government. The applicant was a government servant at the relevant point of time and in connivance with the Motilal Goyal, who was the prime accused entered into conspiracy and helped the other accused persons in acquiring the land by issuing forged revenue receipts. The said forgery was committed in the revenue records for personal gain. The applicant cannot claimed any parity with the other accused persons who have been granted bail as they have been flouting the orders of the Hon'ble Court. While granting bail to the co-accused Motilal Goyal & others it was specifically directed that, "the applicant shall cooperate in the trial pending before the Sessions Judge concerned. He shall not seek undue adjournments on the dates fixed". The accused persons who have been granted bail are constantly misusing the liberty of bail by not appearing before the court on the date fixed and on their behalf exemption applications are being filed without any justifiable cause. The charges could not have been framed, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to claim any parity with the other accused persons who have been granted bail. Since the applicant is involved in such a heinous offence in which, after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted, merely because he is in jail for a long period that cannot be a good ground to admit him on bail. In case the bail is granted to the applicant, he will try to tamper with the evidence and will misuse the liberty of bail.

It is further contended by the learned AGA that the first bail application was already dismissed after considering the merits of the case. After thorough investigation the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other accused persons and all the grounds which have been mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicant in this third bail application were also available at the time of disposal of the first bail application, hence on this ground alone the present application is liable to be dismissed.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned AGA, I entirely agree with him that the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is not legally maintainable as no fresh ground has been shown except that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2005 and co-accused have been granted bail. All other grounds were available at the time of the disposal of the first bail application and keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Another, reported in 2005 (51) ACC, P.727(S.C.), the second bail application on those very facts and grounds that were available to the applicant at the time of first bail application was moved and rejected, is not maintainable. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Kalyan Chandra Sarakar(supra), that the grounds which have been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds as the same would lead to speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. Therefore, even though as held by the Apex Court there is a room for filing of subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, but the same can be done if there is a change in the facts or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or when the earlier finding has become obsolete.

So far as the long incarceration in jail of the applicant is concerned, the reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2008 (63) ACC P.115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not per-se illegal, if the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind the bars, as such detention in jail even as under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, at this juncture it is necessary to mention here that from the perusal of the order sheet of the case it has been found that the case is adjourned on each date on the application of the accused persons who have been released on bail, on account of which further proceedings are held up, even the argument on the charge has not been concluded on account of successive adjournments on behalf of the other accused persons. In view of the reasons above mentioned the third bail application of the applicant, Rakesh Veer Singh is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused person within six months making sincere efforts and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The trial court would be at liberty to take its own view on all the matters and will not be influenced by the observations made by this court in this order.

The Senior Superintendent of Police is also directed to depute special messenger to procure attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the court concerned. It is expected from the trial court to decide the case expeditiously.

With these observations the third bail application is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.4.2011

Mustaqeem.