The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application said that a person apprehending arrest on accusation of having committed a non bailable offence has every right, even if he is arrested in number of cases, to move in each of offence registered against him irrespective of the fact that he is already in custody but for different offence, for the reason that every such application will have to be heard and decided on merits independent of another crime in which he is already in custody.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Dr Rajni Tripathi.
The anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C) has been moved seeking bail in Case under sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC, P.S Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
The prosecution allegation is that the applicant, who is said to be Principal of Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth Degree College, was placed under suspension in February, 2013.
It is alleged that a National Seminar on Hindi and Economics was organized on 21, 22 and 23 February 2009 in the College with funds received from University Grant Commission, New Delhi and other sources. Dr Madhu Tandon was the coordinator of National Seminar and the applicant was its director. Dr Madhu Tandon, through her complaint dated 20.04.2009 informed that she had spent Rs 12,500/- in the printing of souvenirs in the said Economics Seminar at the behest of the Principal, but the payment has not been made by the Principal/applicant.
It is further alleged that in the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 16.07.2009, the Principal assured to pay the expenses incurred by Dr Madhu Tandon and to present the details of the income expenditure of the Seminar, but neither she made the expenditure incurred by Dr Madhu Tandon nor presented the details of income-expenditure and kept on procrastinating the matter on one pretext or the other, due to which the matter is said to be pending since long.
Meanwhile, Dr Madhu Tandon is said to be transferred to DAV College, Lucknow and from there she also sent several requests but the Principal did not reply.
It is further alleged that in the audit from year 2008-09 up to year 2011-12, objection was raised that in the seminar held in the year 2008-09, money was withdrawn by opening a new account by Principal but neither the expenditure certificate nor the proceedings register were presented at the time of inspection/audit and the Principal is said to have withdrawn money from the annual festival fund in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011, but its expenditure certificates were not presented at the time of audit. Thereafter, the Principal informed the Managing Committee in its meeting on 05.10.2012 that she has received the bills / vouchers / documents of the Seminar 2009 and in compliance with the decision taken in the previous meeting of the Management Committee, she is presenting it to the Chairman.
It is also alleged that after the meeting was over, the Managing Committee produced the photocopies of Bill Vouchers to the clerk in the college office.
It is further alleged that again, in the meeting of the Management Committee dated 24.11.2012, Principal was directed to produce the original bill vouchers of Seminar 2009 then the Principal on 29.11.2012 is said to have produced the original bill vouchers of Seminar 2009 and Annual Festival year 2009 and 2011 in the college office.
Thereafter, due to expenditure on items other than those prescribed by UGC New Delhi and cash memos of more than Rs 20,000/-, the Management committee instructed the Manager to submit a report after preliminary investigation on the vouchers produced by Principal. After preliminary investigation, the Manager found various vouchers suspicious, thereafter, a three-member inquiry committee was constituted by the Management Committee of the college to investigate the matter and the Principal was placed under suspension.
It is also alleged that the Inquiry Committee issued the charge sheet to the Principal on 12.03.2013 which was replied to by the applicant/ Principal. The inquiry committee after conducting an inquiry submitted its inquiry report dated 17.08.2013. In compliance with the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee on 05.09.2013, a copy of the investigation report was sent to the applicant/Principal as well as the Vice Chancellor of Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur for information.
It is also alleged that the Principal submitted her written statement on 20.09.2013 in the office and also got her oral statement recorded in the meeting of the Management Committee dated 21.09.2013 and after considering the submissions of the applicant, the inquiry report was accepted.
It is alleged that after investigation by the Inquiry Committee, it was duly found that the UGC account of the College has already been opened in UCO Bank Civil Line, but the applicant/Principal voluntarily opened a new account in the same bank and deposited a sum of Rs 90,000/- received from UGC, New Delhi and on 03.02.2009, without the consent/approval of the Management Committee, and in connivance with the Bank Officials is said to have withdrawn a sum of Rs 90,000/- and misappropriated it and also concealed the entry of payment received in the UGC Cash book.
It is also alleged that the vouchers submitted by the applicant in the office for different sums were found forged and fabricated. It is thus alleged that the applicant/Principal by misusing her position grabbed the entire money.
Thereafter, applicant is said to have approached the court below by filing anticipatory bail application, which came to be rejected vide order dated 31.05.2023, hence the anticipatory bail application before the Court.
Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is a lady and is aged about 61 years. It is also submitted that in the alleged matter a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated by the Management of the Institution and the matter went up to the Vice Chancellor of the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur wherein certain favourable observations were made with regard to the applicant.
It is further submitted that the involvement of the applicant in the present false criminal case is nothing but just to harass the applicant at the fag end of her retirement, whereas prima facie the nature of dispute appears to be a ‘Service Dispute.’
On the other hand, Counsel for the informant as well as counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that applicant has been taken into custody in another case being Case under Sections 468, 467, 471,420,379 IPC, and in Case under Sections 204,506 IPC, P.S Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, therefore, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
Having considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, judgements relied upon by the counsel for the parties, and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, since the charge sheet has been filed without the arrest of the applicant all the material evidence and documents have been collected, the applicant was also granted interim protection and there are no allegations that during the period of interim protection she ever tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in these circumstances, the Court allowed the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant Dr Rajni Tripathi, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(2) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(3) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(4) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. (6) 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 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.