Radhey Shyam Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 7521 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 19
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37688 of 2017
 
Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Samit Gopal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Gupta,B.D.Yadav,Rajeev Kumar Mishra,Sanjai Srivastava,Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Applicant is in custody in connection with Case Crime No. 138 of 2017 under Section 386, 120B, 392 and 411 IPC and Section 7/13 & 8/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli, in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place on 8 June 2017 between 14:00 hrs. to 14:45 hrs. The first information report was lodged on the same date at about 15:35 hrs. by Tripurari Pandey a Police Officer. The allegation in the FIR is that the first informant while going to his office along with staff, upon reaching the petrol pump situated at Katshila, saw a truck bearing registration no. U.P. 62AT-7011 parked on the highway and two persons and a white government vehicle with hooter on the roof of the vehicle bearing registration no. U.P.65ET-8052 was parked. The persons were quarreling with the driver of the truck. Upon intervention, the truck driver, namely, Teju Yadav, informed that the two persons are threatening to kill him and are demanding illegal gratification. The two persons who intercepted the truck were wearing uniform of the transport department, upon enquiry they informed that at the behest of the Additional Road Transport Officer Enforcement (A.R.T.O.) i.e. R.S. Yadav (applicant), money was being collected from the truck owners/drivers. It is further alleged that upon search Rs. 16,850/- was recovered from their person, which according to the driver of the intercepted truck, belonged to him. Mobile phone of the persons was seized.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the case is false and fabricated; no evidence is available to implicate the applicant; the ingredients of the offence under sections of the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against the applicant; the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence; there is no evidence or independent witness; applicant has no concern with the alleged government vehicle parked on the spot; further, would urge that charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent court on 4 September 2017; cognizance taken thereon; applicant is languishing in jail since 12 June 2017; therefore, it is sought to be urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) has opposed the bail. Further, two applications, one on behalf of Sri Rakesh Nyayik, who claims to have assisted the Investigating Officer by providing evidence against the applicant and the second by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, prosecution witness, who claims to be the Vice President of Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, are opposing the bail application. Voluminous documents and materials running over 800 pages, has been brought on record to contend that it was placed before the Investigating Officer (I.O.), however, it has been brushed aside under the influence of the applicant. Both the applicants oppose the bail application.

Learned A.G.A. would submit that the applicant is a civil servant employed with the State Government. Initially, he was appointed Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, thereafter, managed appointed on deputation as Reserve Inspector (Transport) in 1995, finally, was made Incharge Road Transport Officer (R.T.O.). Monthly salary of the applicant, as on date, is Rs. 64,306/-. He would further urge that the applicant has amassed wealth and assets worth over 500 crores, which is definitely disproportionate to his know source of income. It is on the strength of ill acquired wealth, coupled with muscle power, the applicant has been intimidating and tampering the prosecution witnesses. Further, applicant exercises influence and clout in the political circles, in the police department, therefore, would urge that releasing the applicant at this stage would adversely affect the trail and the investigation in pending criminal cases registered against the applicant.

Sri Srivasvata, learned counsel appearing for Rakesh Nyayik would submit that Rakesh was summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, pursuant thereof, he appeared and submitted voluminous documents running into 706 pages in support of the accusation of corruption and the list of property acquired by the applicant and the members of his family, which though noted and recorded in the case diary, but, the applicant managed to hushup and dilute the investigation.

With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for Sri Rakesh Nyayik and learned A.G.A., I have perused the extracts of the case diary which records that Rakesh submitted documents and material running into 706 pages. The entire document has been brought on record which, prima facie, reflects that applicant has grossly misused his office and position to amass wealth in the name of members of his family, acquaintance and domestic servants. The material brought on record would reflect that applicant has floated four ghost companies, wherein, Apoorva Yadav (son), Richa Yadav (daughter), Poonam Yadav (daughter), Mahendra Maurya (driver), S.K. Dwivedi (C.A.), brothers of the applicant, Gangotri Devi (wife), other relatives, are partners and share holders. Details of the company and assets acquired include:

i.) M/s Orbit Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. CIN No. US51109WB2006 PTC 107550 Registered Office 13 Khudiram Bose Sarani, 2nd Floor, Room No. 2044, Kolkata (W.B.) 700080 worth Rs. 3 crors.

ii.) M/s Krystal Apartments Private Limited CIN No. U70102UP2011 PTC 047986 Registered Office D-47/200-B, Ramapura, Varanasi, U.P. 221001 worth Rs. 1 crore

iii.) M/s Superior Nirman Private Limited Registered Office 498/1, Rabindra Sarani Shyampukun, Kolkata, W.B. 700005 worth Rs. 3 crores

iv.) M/s Dwivedi Consultancy Services Private Limited CIN No. U74140WV2005PTC104660 Registered Office Room No. 214, Kamalalaya Center, 156A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata, W.B. 700013

From the statement of the witnesses and documentary material, it further reflects that the applicant has in the name of his driver, viz. Mahendra Maurya, a 3 Star Hotel, in the name and style "The WestInn Hotel" at Varanasi, valued at 70 crores. Further, details of land, property in various villages and cities valued at 100 crores have also been detailed. It is alleged that the applicant is owner of 15 luxury Volvo Buses, Shopping Mall and a Hotel, valued at 12 crores, at Gorakhpur. Several flats purchased in the name of his son, daughters and wife have also been detailed.

It is further stated that the applicant is member of the posh "Banars Club", which was obtained by using his clout and influence. Varanasi Development Authority initiated proceedings against Hotel WestInn and its Director i.e. driver Mahendra Maurya for illegal construction, instituting criminal case bearing Crime Case No. 623/2017 under Section 447 IPC. Further, details of property situated at Varanasi, Chandauli, Gorakhpur, Ghazipur, Azamgarh, Bhadohi, NOIDA, Ghzaibad, New Delhi and several other Districts of Uttar Pradesh, as well as, properties in other States has been mentioned which I need not detail in the order.

Further, fraudulent transactions by way of sale-deed has been brought on record, wherein, the property of a valuable land belonging to the Avas Vikas Parishad, Panditpur Yojna, was purchased by the applicant in the name of one Smt. Kiran Sinha, wife of Sanjay Kumar Sinha, for Rs. 20,10,000/- on 20 November 2011 and on the very same date another sale-deed was got executed from Smt. Kiran Sinha transferring the property in his name.

It is further alleged that applicant managed to get the case transferred from civil police to Vigilance Department of the State on 1 July 2017, thereafter, it is urged that under the influence and pressure of the applicant the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the Vigilance has grossly diluted the entire case despite details of property and ill acquired wealth provided by the witnesses during investigation. In order to aid and abet the applicant the I.O. has set up a weak case against the applicant so that the prosecution case would go unsubstantiated during trial. The entire evidence brought on record, which is a part of the case diary, has been ignored/hushed away, rather, has not been investigated upon.

Sri S.S.A. Kazmi, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution witness would submit that it is not a case where the allegation against the applicant is a case of a single incident of corruption, but it is an organized crime being carried by the applicant in the entire eastern region of the State in connivance with transport officials of the department, private persons, police officials, and under political patronage, thereby, looting the State exchequer and the public. Applicant has amassed wealth running into several hundreds of crores. Prosecution witnesses have been receiving threats from the applicant and his well wishers who are muscle men, against which the witness has written several letters expressing threat to his life.

In this backdrop Sri Kazmi would submit that there is apprehension that the unaccounted money parked, would get syphoned off to foreign countries if the applicant at this stage is released, further, the applicant would manage to eliminate or purchase, not only the witnesses, but destroy and tamper evidences.

The learned counsel would further submit that investigation was not conducted by the Vigilance, fairly, impartially and honestly, which is a deliberate and willful act on the part of the officers, in connivance with the applicant to suppress the entire evidences placed before them during the course of investigation, thus, it is urged that the conduct of the Investigating Officer is such that has exposed all the witnesses to threat of their life at the hands of the applicant.

I have perused the materials and documents brought on record with the assistance of the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The material, prima facie, would reflect that a petty official of the State has amassed wealth and assets worth hundreds of crores and it is on the strength of the ill gotten wealth and assets, applicant exercises influence not only with the officials of the transport department but also with the investigating agency. The statements of the witnesses brought on record would reflect that they are being subjected to threat and injury. This fact is also reflected from the statement of the first informant, who is a police officer. Further, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted against the applicant clearly reflects that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) instead of making a through investigation, has instead, aided and assisted the applicant in providing an escape route by grossly diluting the investigation against the applicant, in so far, it relates to amassing disproportionate assets. If such is the conduct of the Investigating Agency, in my opinion, it would seriously jeopardize the criminal administration of justice in the State. Investigation is merely an eye wash. I am convinced that there is serious threat to the prosecution witnesses, further, likelihood that the applicant may destroy the evidences, or likely to commit more offences during the period of his release on bail.

For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage in interest of society.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Registrar General to place a copy of this order before the trial court to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the order either on facts or on merit. Further, a copy of the order shall be placed before Chief Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh and Director General of Police to form an opinion as to whether, in the given facts, further investigation is required to be conducted against the applicant.

Order Date :- 1.12.2017

Mukesh Kr./S.Prakash