Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 5 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13595
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11236 of 2024
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 300 of 2021, under sections 13(1)(b) r/w section 13(2) of P.C. Act,1988, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Mahoba.
As per the prosecution story, while working as a public servant, the applicant had amassed assets disproportionate to his income and called for an open enquiry whereupon, ADG (Public Grievances) vide letter dated 31-07-2019, directed the investigation of the matter to be conducted by Anti-Corruption Organization, whereafter, the Investigating Officer namely, Surendra Singh conducted the open enquiry and submitted the report to the police station for lodging the present first information report, whereafter, the first information report was lodged for the disproportionate income amassed amounting to Rs. 55,02,167/-.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that when the applicant was under the judicial custody, the present first information report was lodged without associating him and thus, the applicant has failed to explain the alleged calculation with respect of having the disproportionate income. He next added that the Investigating Officer is alleged to take explanation from the applicant in jail, though the fact remains that since the applicant was in jail since last more than two years and therefore, he was not in a position to explain with respect to his income as no papers were over there. He also submits that the chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution has failed to substantiate that as to why the arrest of the applicant is required.
In support of his contentions, he has also placed on a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No. 18081/2024, decided on 17-01-2025) and has referred paragraph nos. 9 & 10 of the said Judgment, which are quoted hereinunder:-
"9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.
10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the Investigating Officer has already interrogated the accused and has filed the chargesheet, now, the arrest thereafter, would a formal arrest.
He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has already been enlarged on bail in a case wherein, he was in jail during the present First Information Report is lodged against him. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06-12-2023 and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06-12-2024. As the applicant was in jail since last more than two years and therefore, he was not in a position to explain the allegation regarding disappropriate income as no papers were over there. Further the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
Let the applicant-Arun Kumar Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and
(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025
AKS
