The Allahabad High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail application to Sichpal, Brahmanand Singh accused of irregularities committed in respect of funds of Rs 16,20,000/- earmarked for plantation and said amount was embezzled.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Brahmanand Singh.
The application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hardi, District Bahraich, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
The Court noted that an FIR dated 25.07.2018 was lodged by first informant-Shridharacharya Pandey, Inspector, U.P Vigilance Organization, Gorakhpur, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich. In the aforesaid FIR, as many as 5 persons, namely, (1) Dinesh Kant Srivastava, (2) Bramha Singh, (3) Ajay Kumar Gautam, (4) Kailash Ram Yadav and (5) Ramraja have been nominated as named accused.
The allegation levelled against the accused persons is that irregularities were committed in respect of funds of Rs 16,20,000/- earmarked for plantation and said amount was embezzled.
It has been argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas, there is no credible evidence against him.
At the relevant time, the applicant was working as ‘Sichpal’. The applicant, being ‘Sichpal’, was not authorized to sanction any amount.
As per prosecution version, an amount of Rs 16,20,000/-, which was provided by the Government for plantation, was misused and misappropriated by the accused persons. The applicant was working on a lower post of ‘Sichpal’ and said the amount was dealt with by the higher officers. The named co-accused Ajay Kumar Gautam, who was Soil Conservation Inspector, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023.
Similarly, Kailash Ram Yadav, who was Junior Engineer, has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Court vide order dated 31.05.2023.
Counsel submitted that the case of the applicant is on better footing than that of said co accused persons. It was also pointed out that the first information report was registered on 25.07.2018 and the charge-sheet has been submitted in December, 2022.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. Further, the investigation is already complete and a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court and thus, the applicant is not required for any investigation.
Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
A.G.A has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant was involved in the alleged misappropriation of public funds, however, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court.
“It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out”, the Court observed while allowing the anticipatory bail application.
The Court ordered that,
In the event of arrest of the applicant-Brahmanand Singh, in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant would cooperate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.