Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Singh Srivastava vs State Of U.P. on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15646 of 2021
Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA and perused record.
2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest in Case Crime No. 237 of 2019, under Section 13(1)(b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.
3. The accused applicant was posted as Clerk in Health Department of the State Government. Large scale corruption and irregularities were noted in implementation of National Rural Health Mission (N.R.H.M.) meant to augment the medical and health facilities in rural areas. This Court also noted the irregularities and directed the CB.I. to investigate the corruption in implementation of the N.R.H.M. mission in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In respect of the District Pilibhit, it was noted that the then Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit along with other accused, was involved in huge corruption and irregularities in the Scheme/Mission. The State Government vide order dated 13.04.2016 directed the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry in respect of the corruption and irregularities in implementation of the N.R.H.M. Mission in District Pilibhit. In the enquiry, it was found that the present accused applicant was involved in corruption and irregularities; and had earned huge amount of illegal wealth and created assets disproportionate to his income from known legal sources. During the check period from 01.01.1997 to 31.10.2013, the accused applicant had total income of Rs.21,81,472/- from his known legal sources of income, whereas he had spent Rs.40,12,828/-. Thus, he had spent 83.95% more than the money earned by him from known legal sources of income. The accused applicant was collecting money by giving appointment to Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (A.N.M) in the Health Department. After this report from the vigilance, the F.I.R. has been registered against the accused applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, he is entitled to be exonerated in criminal proceedings further entitling the accused applicant to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. To support his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI And Another; (2020) 9 SCC 636.
5. On the other hand, Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that from a reading of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated or the proceedings are out of spite and vengeance; or in abuse of process of the Court. He submits that during enquiry, it has been clearly noted that the accused applicant has spent 83.95% more money than the money earned by him from his known legal sources of income. He further submitted that during vigilance enquiry, it has been found that he was involved in corruption and collecting money by giving appointment/employment under the N.R.H.M. mission. It has been further submitted that the judgment rendered in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (Supra) is in respect of adjudication of proceedings in respect of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It is also submitted by him that the judgment rendered in Radheyshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal and another reported in 2011 (3) SCC 581, on which reliance has been placed while deciding the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (Supra); has no application in respect of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings inasmuch as the case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra) was a case related to adjudication of proceedings under the PMLA Act, 2002 and the criminal proceedings for substantive offences. In adjudication proceeding, it is the trained judicial mind which is not less than the Sessions Judge who adjudicates the trial proceeding and appreciate the evidences and therefore, it was held that if in adjudication proceeding, the accused is exonerated on merit, it would not be appropriate to continue with the proceedings in respect of the substantive offences for the same charges. In disciplinary proceedings, the finding is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas in criminal proceedings the guilt is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the finding of disciplinary authority can never be binding on the trial court.
6. I am in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the State by the learned A.G.A.
7. Looking at the offence, its nature and gravity, and vigilance enquiry report, this Court does not find it a case where the accused applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail inasmuch the case does not fall within the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant any indulgence to the accused applicant.
8. Thus, the present application is rejected.
9. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders before the concerned trial court within ten days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.2.2023
Arun K. Singh
