Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Mohan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 June, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10212 of 2021
Applicant :- Jagdish Mohan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Dev Garg
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Dev Garg for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG assisted by Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant- Jagdish Mohan S/o Sri L.D. Gupta being aggrieved of the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 608 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 238 of 2001 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad by Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Varanasi.
3. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a retired government servant, who had started his service in the year 1961 as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department and thereafter, he was posted as Superintending Engineer after earning his promotion. He was so posted from 1984 to 1993, when he was promoted as Chief Engineer, Level-I from where he superannuated on 30.09.1996.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that immediately after superannuation, he was given no objection certificate dated 27.04.1998, copy enclosed as Annexure-5. However, on 09.08.2001, FIR was lodged against the applicant along with other accused persons, mentioning therein that it was revealed in inquiry that a weir was constructed over tones river, a kilometer ahead of tones aqueduct on the upper stream, agreement for which was entered into between one M/s Frontier Construction Company and the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department and several financial irregularities was noticed, for which there was evidence of direct involvement of the applicant and others.
5. Learned counsel submits that applicant is 82 years old retired official and suffering from several ailments and therefore, it is a fit case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24159 of 2017 (Jagdish Mohan vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) where a request was made for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2017, passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Act, Varanasi in Special S.T. No. 24 of 2012 whereby non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. Reading this order, it is submitted that Division Bench after considering facts and circumstances of the case, had granted protection in favour of the applicant till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or for a period of six weeks, whichever is earlier and had kept non-bailable warrant, issued against the petitioner in abeyance.
6. However, the fact of the matter is as pointed out by learned AGA that Division Bench of this Court had refused to quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 whereby non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant.
7. Learned AGA submits that applicant had approached the court on multiple occasions and had failed to obtain an order for quashing of the sanction order for prosecution and has yet not surrendered before the court concerned, when non-bailable warrant was issued. It is submitted that protection was only afforded for a period of six weeks or till completion of the investigation. Even after completion of the investigation, summons were issued for appearance of the applicant and thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued, but applicant did not appear and now at this stage, has filed an application for seeking anticipatory bail.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the law laid down in case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court in para-7.2 (7) has clearly held as under:-
".......(7) The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under Section 438 of the Code should not be exercised; and"
9. In the light of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 and P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2019 decided on September 05, 2019, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apparently not cooperating with the investigation in a matter where FIR was lodged in the year 2001 and over 20 years time has lapsed.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that some interim protection be afforded in favour of the applicant.
11. This prayer of the applicant's counsel is contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nathu Singh Vs. The State of U.P.; ICL 2021 (5) SC 937, and therefore, this prayer deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
12. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.6.2021
Vikram/-S
