Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Kumar Jain @ ( Y.K. Jain As ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 21 July, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41530
Reserved on:- 16.07.2025
Delivered on:- 21.07.2025
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 673 of 2025
Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Jain @ ( Y.K. Jain As Stated In F.I.R.)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arpit Chaudhary,Aradhana Singh,Ishan Baghel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma,Nadeem Murtaza,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ishan Baghel assisted by Shri Arpit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Nadeem Murtaza assisted by Shri Rishabh Kapoor and Harshvardhan Kediya, learned counsel for the complainant.
3. This is the third anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime no. 0121 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of PC Act, P.S. Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar (South Commissionerate).
4. Previously, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 590 of 2025 was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, upon the objections raised by the learned A.G.A., with liberty granted to the applicant to approach the competent court. Pursuant to that liberty, the applicant approached the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act Court No. 8, Lucknow, where the application was rejected by order dated 10.06.2025.
5. Earlier, in the year 2022, the applicant had filed the first Anticipatory Bail Application No. 17761 of 2021 before this Court, which was rejected on merits vide order dated 18.10.2022. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced as follows:
"6. From perusal of record it appears that applicant was working as Superintendent Engineer, when the work in question was accomplished and that the terms and conditions of the contract were changed illegally without proper approval from the competent authority and thereby huge loss has been caused to the public exchequer by using sub standard material in the alleged project. Matter requires thorough investigation and custodial interrogation of applicant may be required as the question of recovery of amount is involved. No doubt the co-accused Rakesh Chaudhary has been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but it appears that the role of applicant is distinguished from said co-accused, as in the report of the departmental inquiry it has been mentioned that in contract with M/s Doshiyan Limited, the condition of making payment for 3 km unlaid pipes along with laid pipe lines was changed by the applicant and co-accused Sunil Kumar Gupta and thus, the applicant can not claim parity with said co-accused. Even otherwise it is well settled that bail can not be granted merely on the basis of parity ignoring gravity and evidence. As per the departmental inquiry, loss of public funds in the tune of Rs. 19.22 crores has been caused to department. It may be observed that corruption in public welfare schemes has become a menace to the society and thus, the officials involved in such matter do not deserve any leniency.
7. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, role of applicant, quantum of public funds involved, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
8. Before parting with this order, it directed that the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar shall ensure that proper and fair investigation is conducted and the role of higher officials of Jal Nigam is also looked into during the investigation.
9. The application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar for necessary compliance."
6. From paragraph 8 of the order dated 18.10.2022, it is evident that the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, was directed to ensure a fair investigation, including an inquiry into the role of senior officials of the Jal Nigam.
7. Pursuant to this direction, the Investigating Officer was called upon to assist the Court, who is present today. The investigating officer has submitted that due to unauthorized sanction/recommendation by the applicant, a loss of Rs. 19 crores was caused to public funds. He also stated that efforts are being made to gather evidence against the then Chairman and Chief Engineer of Jal Nigam; however, no substantive material, apart from oral assurances, has been placed before this Court.
8. Despite the lapse of over two and a half years since the rejection order dated 18.10.2022, no meaningful investigation into the involvement of higher Jal Nigam officials appears to have been undertaken. No material has been produced to indicate any serious efforts by the Investigating Officer in this regard.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 65-year-old retired Gazetted Officer of Jal Nigam with an unblemished service record. He has no criminal antecedents. He has fully cooperated with the investigation and has not been served any notice under the Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S.
It is further contended that prior to the applicant?s joining in July 2011, proposals to amend two contract conditions of the agreement and replace PAC pipes with GRP pipes had already been under consideration. The minutes of the meeting dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit) and two letters dated 04.04.2011 signed by then Project Manager Shri S.K. Awasthi, confirm that the proposals were initiated before the applicant?s appointment. The applicant merely acted upon the pre-existing proposals after obtaining due approval from the competent authority. The decision was taken by the higher authorities independently. Hence, he cannot be held individually accountable.
It is further submitted that the subsequent addition of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after a prolonged delay, does not establish any fresh incriminating material against the applicant. Instead, it reflects an arbitrary escalation of charges. No allegations of personal gain or wrongful enrichment have been made. The applicant did not originate or unilaterally alter contract conditions but acted upon proposals of the Project Manager addressed to the Chief Engineer, who had instructed to put up the proposal to the then Superintending Engineer. There is nothing on record to show that there was any independent decision making by the applicant to hold him accountable
Additionally, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 10 years. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2021 filed by S.K. Awasthi, the Hon?ble Court granted protection from arrest until cognizance is taken under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., vide order dated 23.04.2024. This order was passed after the applicant?s first anticipatory bail application was rejected in the year 2022. Thus, this is change in the circumstance and a new fact altogether. Reference is also made to the interim protection granted in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10198 of 2021 ("Suraj Lal vs. State of U.P. and others") vide order dated 27.05.2024. Furthermore, with the addition of offences under the PC Act, now triable by the Court of Sessions/Special Court, sanction for prosecution is necessary. These developments constitute significant changes in circumstance and law.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Nadeem Murtaza, and Shri Rao Narendra Singh learned AGA, have opposed the bail application, contending that no new grounds have been raised in this third application. Shri Murtaza further argues that the addition of PC Act offences does not amount to a change in circumstance. The offences under the PC Act are punishable up to seven years, and the previous bail rejection was in respect of more serious charges; hence, the present additions do not provide any assistance to the applicant.
11. Learned AGA and the investigating officer both have submitted that they have not challenged the two stay orders granted by the Division Bench of this Court before the Supreme Court.
12. Perused the record.
13. Both parties have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42.
14. Additionally, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn support from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 14696.
15. In both the above decisions, it has been categorically held that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable, provided there is a material change in the facts or circumstances of the case.
16. In the present matter, several new developments have occurred since the rejection of the applicant?s first anticipatory bail application in 2022, which are as under:-
Interim protection from arrest has been granted to co-accused persons in related writ petitions and those orders have not been challenged by the State.
The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 10 years and investigation is still ongoing.
The Investigating Officer, present before the Court, has fairly admitted that no notice or warrant has been issued against the applicant, which indicates that the applicant has been cooperating in the investigation.
The directions issued by this Court in its order dated 18.10.2022 to investigate the role of senior officials of Jal Nigam have not been meaningfully complied with.
17. Considering the change in circumstance discussed herein above and upon due consideration of the applicant?s age (now 68 years), his retired status as a Gazetted Officer with an unblemished service record and no criminal antecedents, the fact that no coercive step has been taken by the Investigating Officer so far which suggest that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation throughout, and the undertaking furnished on his behalf to cooperate fully with the investigation in future, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to continued cooperation in the investigation.
18. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-
The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
19. The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.7.2025
R.C.
