Allahabad High Court
Kailash Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 25.04.2023
Delivered On:- 05.05.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13208 of 2023
Applicant :- Kailash Bhati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan,Sadrul Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., K.K.Rao, Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri K.K.Rao, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kailash Bhati, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Ecotech-3, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, pendency of trial.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant.
4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.01.2023.
5. There are allegations in the FIR lodged after order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., against five named accused. It is alleged that the named accused have collusively sold and purchased the government land and have earned profits of crores of rupees. The land in dispute were recorded as banjar in the revenue record. It were lands of non-transferable nature and no one had right to sell or purchase the same. The details of transactions were given in the FIR with specific details sale and purchase made by named accused in the FIR.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued only two new grounds raised in this bail application. First is that co-accused, Deepak, has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55828 of 2022.
7. Second ground is that the applicant is a public servant and he put his signatures over the disputed lease deed in discharge of his official duties, therefore, he cannot be said to be involved in this case. No sanction of the state government has been taken for the prosecuting the applicant. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
1) D.T. Virupakshappa vs. C. Subash, 2015 (0) Supreme (SC) 362
2) Om Prakash and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Rachi-1 and Ors., MANU/SC/0789/2012
8. Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application of the applicant.
9. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the role of co-accused, Deepak, is different from that of the applicant. He is not a government employee but a private person whose wife is named accused in the FIR. The second argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that applicant is a government servant and he signed the lease deed in dispute in discharge of his official duties which is legally misconceived and deserves to be turned down. The applicant is employee of Greater Noida, Industrial Development Authority. He is employed on the post of Manager (Estate). He is not a government servant but employee of a development authority which has been constituted under a statute. The employees of the statutory authority are not government or civil servant or public sector employees and are not governed by government rules and regulations. They are not entitled to the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as ''public servant' as held by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.N.L. vs Pramod V. Sawant, in Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2010.
10. In view of the above consideration, this Court does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail.
11. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
12. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 05.05.2023
Rohit
