Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 16254 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113963
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23092 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhu Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Vibhu Rai, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Amit Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0048 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Gadhipukhta, District Shamli, during the pendency of trial.

Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 22.5.2019 was lodged by first informant Inspector Kanwar pal Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 0048 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Gadhipukhta, District Shamli. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Amit Kumar has been nominated as solitary named accused.

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that pursuant to the letter dated 14.10.2022 issued by the Head Quarter of the Director General of Police, U.P. and open iquiry was conducted by the first informant against applicant. The check period was determined as 28.2.2005 to 31.12.2010. On the basis of the inquiry conducted by the first informant referred to above, he came to the conclusion that the total amount of the salary received by the applicant during check period was Rs. 14,36,002/- . However a sum of Rs. 45,27,256/- was invested by the applicant. As such the difference in between the income and the expenditure of the applicant was by 215.26%.

Subsequent to the aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with the statutory investigation of concerned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer prima facie came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are prima facie true. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, a charge sheet dated 30.5.2022 was submitted against the applicant whereby and whereunder he has been charge sheeted under Section 13(1)(B) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned Case Crime Number. A Matrimonial dispute is going on with the wife of the first applicant namely Meenakshi Chaturvedi. The complaint was made by the wife of the applicant to the effect that applicant is guilty of amassing wealth beyond his known sources of income. In the background of the aforesaid, an open inquiry was directed in the case of the petitioner. It is next contended that in the open inquiry so conducted applicant was extended the benefit of opportunity of hearing. The entire facts and circumstances, including the allegations regarding purchase of house and Santro car were duly explained by the applicant in his reply to the Investigating Officer conducting open inquiry. To buttress his submission he has placed before the Court the copy of the reply submitted before the officer who conducted open inquiry, which is on record at page 32 of the paper book.

With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicant submits that when the explanation offered by the applicant is taken into consideration the same already goes to show that expenditure incurred by the applicant is not over and above the known source of income. It is thus urged that in view of above, no offence under Section 13(1)(B) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be said to have been committed by present applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the F.I.R. dated 21.10.2021 which has been lodged against the wife of the applicant namely Meenakshi Chaturvedi. He, therefore, submits that the bona fide of the complainant i.e. the wife of the applicant is itself doubtful. Attention of the Court was further invited to the fact that the wife of the applicant has already initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act but nothing adverse with regard to the income of the applicant has been stated by the wife in the said proceedings.

According to the learned counsel for applicant, the applicant has criminal history of seventeen cases which has been duly explained in paragraph-51 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application for bail. According to the learned counsel for applicant, applicant has already been acquitted in the criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C. whereas the trial in respect of the criminal case under Section 376 I.P.C. has still not concluded. Rest of the cases are relating to petty offences. On the above premise he submits that the rigours laid down in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 are not attracted. The charge-sheet having been submitted, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands crystallised. Up to this stage there is no such exceptional circumstance which warrants custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial. Reference has also been made to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhash Chandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2023 Live Law SC 373. On the cumulative strength of above, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. He accordingly concludes by submitting that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He contends that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore no indulgence be granted by this Court in his favour. Applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 13(1)(B) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, which is an economical offence and therefore the rigours of law with regard to the grant of bail in such matters are far more stringent than those which are required to be considered for granting bail in regular matter Referring to the material on record, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant has amassed wealth well beyond his known sources of income. The innocence of applicant can be established only during the course of trial. Up to this stage, there is no such material on the basis of which prima facie it can be concluded that the applicant is innocent. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he may terrorise the witness or hamper the trial. He, therefore submits that the bail application be rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of accused coupled with the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted, evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands synchronised, there is no such exceptional circumstance warranting custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment referred to above, antecedents of the applicant having been duly explained in paragraph 51 of the affidavit, there being nothing on record to indicate that the rigours laid down in the judgment of the Supreme court in Neeru Yadav (supra) are attracted in any manner in the present case, the explanation offered by the applicant to the Investigating Officer prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. wherein the prima facie expenditure incurred by the applicant during check period has been satisfactorily explained but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

Let the applicant Amit Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 0048 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Gadhipukhta, District Shamli be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

5. 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Order Date :- 23.5.2023

Aiman