Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178514
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10930 of 2024
Applicant :- Dheeraj Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Ojha,Sheshadri Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Dheeraj Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0123 of 2022 under Section 420 I.P.C., & 7(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Kotwali, District Azamgarh.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is working as Bench Secretary (Peshkar) in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.) Azamgarh. It is alleged that applicant sent a whatsapp message to the complainant Shrinath Yadav, whereby, the photocopy of an alleged order alleged to have been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was sent to him. The prosecution further alleges that certain conversation had taken place in between the applicant and the complainant, whereby, demand of certain money was made. Learned counsel for applicant submits that even on the admitted facts no offence under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be said to be made out against applicant. Applicant does not have authority under the provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, to pass any order in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Since, applicant does not have any authority to pass an order under the aforesaid act, as such, it cannot be said that there is any basis for the demand alleged to have made by applicant. As there is no basis for the demand alleged to have made by applicant, therefore, no offence under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act can be said to have been committed by applicant. To buttress his submissions, he has relied upon the Five Judges Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Goverment of NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online SC 1724. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since circumstances of the present case are exceptional, therefore the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 SCC Online SC 1199, is squarely attracted in the present case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant had fully cooperated during the course of trial, it is on account of above, that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant. On the above premise, he therefore, submits that custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for conducting the trial of applicant. In case, liberty of applicant is protected by granting him the benefit of anticipatory bail, applicant shall not misuse the same and further co-operate with the trial.There are no chances of the applicant fleeing away from the trial, as he is a government servant. It is thus urged that the applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is aged about 46 years. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. With reference to the record, the learned A.G.A. contends that Inquiry Officer has found that both the charges alleged against applicant are established against him. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. therefore, contends that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made this court finds that prima facie, the following facts stands crystallized, applicant is working as Bench Secretary (Peshkar) in the Court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, the applicant is alleged to have sent a copy of an alleged order through electronic mode, there is nothing on record to show that requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is on record, therefore, in view of above, the said offence can be considered upto this stage, applicant was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer but the charges alleged against applicant in the deparmental proceedings does not show that any financial transaction is alleged to have taken place in between the applicant and the complainant, since applicant is working as Class-III Employee, therefore, he does not have any authority to decide any matter in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, therefore, in above of above, it cannot be said that there is any basis for the demand to have made by applicant, in view of above, the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Datta (supra) is squarely attracted in favour of applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, applicant fully cooperated during the course of investigation, therefore, he has not arrested, the custodial arrest of applicant does not appear to be absolutely necessary for conducting the trial of applicant, the evidence relied upon the prosecution against applicant is merely documentary evidence, therefore, as such law laid down by the Apex Court in Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No.NIL of 2023, arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 376 of 2023, dated 20.03.2023, stands attracted, therefore, irrespective of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application for anticipatory bail, matter requires consideration.
8. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
9. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
10. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
11. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period, before appropriate Bench.
12. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant- Dheeraj Singh shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0123 of 2022 under Section 420 I.P.C., & 7(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Kotwali, District Azamgarh, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Court with the following conditions:-
(i) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court;
(ii). The applicant shall fully co-operate with the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(iv). In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Imtiyaz
