Allahabad High Court
Shyam Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 516 of 2023
Applicant :- Shyam Narayan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Shivanshu Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.556 of 2013 under sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 120-B, 193, 201, 409 I.P.C. and sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Mitauli, district Lakhimpur Kheri.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 has passed the following order:-
"The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.556 of 2013 under sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 120-B, 193, 201, 409 I.P.C. and sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Mitauli, district Lakhimpur Kheri.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
It is alleged in the prosecution case that on the basis of a letter dated 19.7.2011 allegedly written by the applicant, four persons, namely Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Sunil Kumar Dikshit, Abidurrahman Siddiqui and Umesh Kumar Pandey have been granted appointment and paid salary.
It is submitted that initially, on the basis of a complaint of one Kamta Prasad Maurya, Assistant Teacher, the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri directed District Development Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report. In the enquiry it was found that aforesaid four persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher and Umesh Kumar Pandey was given irregular payment on the basis of letter dated 19.7.2011. It was concluded by the enquiry committee that the signature on the letter dated 19.7.2011 is fake and bogus and the applicant has not signed or issued such letter. It is also submitted that Jaishankar Bajpai and Indrapal, Senior Assistant and Junior Clerk respectively who were working in the office of the applicant have corroborated this fact that signature on the letter dated 19.7.2011 was not of the applicant. The applicant has not made any signature on the said letter, nor has issued such letter in the capacity of District Basic Education Officer. The incident is of 2011. The applicant has unblemished service record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a categorical pleading has been made in para 27 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application that only for the sake of filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer is trying to arrest the applicant.
The applicant's counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation. It is further submitted that the main accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail in the year 2013 itself and prior to being on regular bail, they have been granted regular bail. Copy of the bail orders is on record.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate has, per contra, opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel and has submitted that in the forensic examination report, the signature of the applicant has tallied.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that five persons have supported the applicant's case and have stated that they were well acquainted with the signature of the applicant while working in his office and the letter dated 19.7.2011 has not been written by the applicant and those are not signature of the applicant and thus, it is submitted that in view of the statement of the five persons working in his office with him, it can be said that their evidence is primary and will prevail over the secondary evidence of forensic expert. Even otherwise, it is submitted that on the request of wife of the applicant, the forensic examination and consultant have examined the signature of the applicant on the letter dated 19.7.2011 and has opined that the signatures are not of the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is allowed twenty days' time to file objections/counter affidavit.
List on 6.4.2023.
Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact that the applicant is a government servant, he has undertaken to cooperate in the investigation, he has no criminal antecedent, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court. He has cooperated in the investigation. He is a government servant and has no criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in the matter is yet to be filed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant submitting that the investigation is going on.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation; he has no criminal antecedents and he is not a previous convict, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.
In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.
(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.
(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
The application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
R.C.
