Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Chandra Mishra vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56823
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1881 of 2023
Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Misra,Satyanshu Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Prakhar Misra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2012 (EOW-94/2012), under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467 and 468 IPC, Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi.
3. At the outset, the learned AGA has requested for giving further time to him as he could not receive complete instructions on the ground that the investigation stands transferred to the Economic Offences Wing of U.P. Police. Notice of the application was served in the office of the learned Government Advocate on 11.08.2023 and the application has been taken up for hearing on 25.08.2023 and it depicts a really sorry state of affairs when the learned State Counsel expresses inability of obtaining instructions in the matter even after expiry of 14 days since service of notice in the office of the Government Advocate.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing not at some recent point of time but it was transferred way back in the year 2012. Therefore, I do not feel it appropriate to accede to the request of learned AGA to adjourn the case to grant him further time for seeking instructions in the matter and I proceed to examine the merit of the application on the basis of the record available before the Court.
5. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a complaint dated 2703.2012 sent by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation stating that the applicant was working as Senior Store Supervisor and was in-charge of the Warehouse situated in Pihani between the period 01.08.2010 to 12.02.2012. When physical verification of the stock of the warehouse was conducted by a four member committee, some discrepancy was found in the stocks. The FIR alleges that the applicant had caused a loss of Rs. 77,35,453.12.
6. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on 27.03.2012 while the applicant was in service and on the same charges disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant and he was dismissed from service on 31.12.2014, the day on which the applicant was scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.
7. The applicant challenged the order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition No. 3486 (S/S) of 2015 which was allowed along with a bunch of numerous other similar writ petitions and dismissal of all the similarly situate employees was quashed by this Court by means of an judgment and order dated 30.03.2018.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2018 has attained finality.
9. In para 31 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is involved in another case bearing Case Crime No. 608 of 2005, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (CCNo. 132/05), Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur, in which he has been granted bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid case also relates to the same set of allegations.
10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegations are regarding certain irregularities committed by the applicant while he was in service during the year 2010-2012; that the applicant was dismissed from service on same charges and his dismissal has been quashed by this Court; that presently the applicant is aged about 68 years and having been retired long ago, there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of his being able to temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and that he has no other criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Dinesh Chandra Mishra before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;
(ii). That 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
Pradeep/-
