Jaikrishn Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5515 MP

                                                        1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                     MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12568 of 2022

                              Between:-
                              JAIKRISHN UPADHYAY S/O MADHU SUDAN
                              UPADHYAY ,    AGED   ABOUT      35   YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: GOVT.SERVANT PRINCIPAL IN
                              GOVT.HIGHER SECDONARY SCHOOL RAIPUR
                              SONAURI VILLAGE SINGAU, P.S.SOHAGI (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              P.S.SOHAGI P.S.SOHAGI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
                              (BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                            This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                         ORDER

This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C") for grant of bail to the applicant Jaikrishn Upadhyay, who is in custody since 03.03.2022 in connection with Crime No.57/2022 registered at Police Station Sohagi, District Rewa (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant has absolutely no role in either instigating or abating suicide committed by the deceased, who was husband of President of Self Help Group. It is submitted that the present applicant is principal of the school and as per the scheme floated by the State Government, Panchayat and Rural Development Department contained in circular No.7445/22/V- 9/MDM/2020 dated 05.08.2018, the Principal has absolutely no role in the issue of payment for supply of mid day meal.

Reading para 2.2 of the said policy, it is submitted that agreement is to be Triparte between Adhayksha/representative of Self Help Group, Surpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat and Secretary of the School Management committee. Thus it is evident that in a triparte contract agreement Principal of the school has no role to play. Signature SAN Not Reading para 3.1 of the policy, it is submitted that the payments are Verified directly made in the accounts maintained by Self Help Group in the Digitally signed by SARSWATI MEHRA Nationlized Bank and again Principal of the school has no role to play. It Date: 2022.04.20 15:21:47 IST

is submitted that role of the Principal is given in clause 5 and that is of quality & supervision. Therefore, Principal has no role either in making of payment or of entering into agreement with the Self Help Group. It is evident that the present applicant who is Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Raipur Sonauri and he has been apparently falsely implicated.

At this stage, Shri Prakash Upadhyay interrupts and submits that deceased was not related to the Self Help Group. This kind of interruption is un-called for.

It is submitted that since principal is a Government Servant, he is aged about 60 years and investigation is complete. Charge sheet is filed and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thyothar, Distt. Rewa has granted bail to one Shri Rajnish Tiwari who was working as BRC, whereas there are direct allegations on Shri Rajnish Tiwari of accepting Rs.20,000/- as bribe for execution of the contract, applicant has a better case as he has no direct role to play in disbursement of payment and he has been falsely implicated.

Shri Piyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the State in his turn submits that there are three videos transcripts which clearly reveals that present applicant had direct role in instigating and commission of suicide. It is submitted that the deceased was husband of President of Self Help Group. He was managing the work on behalf of self help group. One Neeraj Nayan Tiwari in-charge BRC has admitted in his statements that he had received the complaint in regard to non-payment of amounts due on account of supply of mid day meal. He had caused an enquiry and had enquired from the principal i.e the present applicant-Jaikrishn Upadhyay also who had assured him on 08/02/2022 that payment will be made within 10 to 15 days.

Shri Prakash Upadhyay again interrupts, this is totally uncalled for and unethical practice on the part of the member of the Bar, who was given an opportunity to rebut submissions put forward by learned Govt. Advocate. After rebutting those submission Shri Prakash Upadhyay is trying to interrupt while order is being dictated which reflects that he has all the intention of disrupting the proceedings and is not interested in this Court to dictate the order in open Court, this kind of conduct in the hands of Shri Praksh Upadhyay is wholly uncalled for and amounts to unethical practice.

Shri Piyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate has also read statements of Shri Dadoly Prasad Verma who was working as accountant in the said school that a cheque dated 28.02.2022 was given by the Principal i.e. Jaikishan Upadhyay to Shri Verma on 02.03.2022 and Shri Jaikishan Upadhyay had further directed him to keep the cheque in the file.

Reading these statements, it is submitted that though incharge BRC had already instructed the Principal to make payment and it was the Principal who was responsible for making the payment inasmuch as there was an amendment in the scheme and Principal of the Sankul was made responsible for making payment, by the Government, where mid day meal was supplied to a cluster of schools, then it can not be said that present applicant-Principal- Jaikishn Updhyay had no role as has been read over by Shri Prakash Upadhyay reading Government circular dated 05.08.2020. It is submitted that allegations of demand of bribe are writ large and if any

indulgence has been shown by the Trial Court in the matter of co-accused Rajneesh Tiwari, then that can not be a ground to extend benefit of bail to the present applicant. It is submitted that applicant will tamper with the evidence and will not allow trial to progress therefore, bail application be dismissed.

Shri Prakash Upadhyay, at this stage has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case on Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2019(17) SCC 301. He submits that there is no role of the present applicant-Jaikishn Upadhyay. Infact there is a history of family members of the deceased committing suicide. His father and brother had also committed suicide in the past and thus taking this fact into consideration that deceased had suicidal tendency as is reflected from the history of his father and brother, law laid down in case of Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra) will be squarely applicable and therefore, applicant who is working Principal be given benefit of regular bail, especially when investigation is complete.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. First submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is aged about 60 years, appears to be incorrect from the cause title where age of the applicant-Jaikishn Upadhya is mentioned as 35 years.

Secondly as far as transcript of the video which was prepared by the deceased before committing suicide is concerned, it clearly reveals that for the demand of illegal gratification his payment was not made. The demand of illegal gratification by the accused was so high that the demanded 50% of the amount which pushed him coupled with the fact that his amounts were not paid for last two- three months causing him to take such extreme step. Intention of the present applicant can be gathered, as has been read by Shri Piyush Jain, Govt. Advocate from the statement of the Neeraj Nayan Tiwari and Shri Dadoly Prasad Verma though Shri Prakash Upadhyay submits that Neeraj Nayan Tiwari should have been made a co-accused.

The fact of the matter is that when cheque was prepared on 28.02.2022 then the Principal of the school i.e. present applicant, if not had any intention of the collecting illegal gratification, would have dispatched the cheque and would have handed over the same to the concerned Clerk for further transmission to the beneficiary rather then instructing him to keep it in file.

As far as case of Rajnish Tiwari is concerned, allegation on him is of taking bribe of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of execution of agreement. Immediate cause for committing suicide is over pending non-payment of dues for which deceased had already supplied mid day meal through the Self Help Group with which he was associated in the capacity of husband of Chairman/ President of the Self Help Group after taking goods on credit. Therefore, law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra) is examined then it is evident that there is prima facie evidence of demand of illegal gratification and non-clearance of dues.

Arguments putforth by learned counsel for the applicant that he was no where concerned with stream of payment is belied on two accounts namely as is made out from the statements of Niraj Nayan Tiwari and

corroborated with the statements of Dadoly Prasad Verma who specifically mentioned that a cheque for Rs.32660/- bearing No.072166 containing seal of the Principal and signed by incharge Principal-Jaikrishn Upadhyay was received by him on 02.03.2022 at about 10.00 am clearly demonstrates that there was a deviation from the scheme as is contained in circular dated 05.08.2020 which provides for direct payment to the beneficiary.

Thus there appears to be an element of abatement as defined under Section 107 of IPC and in view of such facts and looking to the sensitivity of the matter, I am of the opinion that till evidence of Niraj Nayan Tiwari and Dadoly Prasad Verma is recorded before the trial Court, it will not be safe to extend benefit of regular bail to the present applicant-Jaikishn Upadhyay.

Accordingly, this application fails and dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE sm