The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Noida Accounts Officer P.K. Dixit, Project Engineer Surendra Kumar Gupta and Assistant Project Engineer Nizamuddin, accused in a case related to criminal conspiracy, breach of trust and cheating.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Samit Gopakl passed this order while hearing a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Dixit and others.
Three anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC have been filed by the applicants- P. K Dixit, Surendra Kumar Gupta and Nizamuddin with the same following prayer:-
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Court may kindly be pleased to grant interim protection from arrest to the Applicant FIR dated 30.07.2015 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF, CBI New Delhi till the pendency of the anticipatory bail application and release the Applicant on anticipatory bail in FIR dated 30.07.2015 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF, CBI New Delhi.”
Counsel for the C.B.I raised a preliminary objection regarding the applicant approaching the Court directly and not approaching the court below at the first instance.
Counsel for the applicants states that the petition had been filed on 21.09.2021 and raising the said objection now is not in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things.
The Court ignoring the said preliminary objection proceeds to hear the petition on its merit.
A first information report was lodged on 13.01.2012 against Yadav Singh & others as Case under Sections 120-B read with Section 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC, Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP for the alleged corrupt practices of the executive engineer working therein between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 while executing engineering work in which agreement bonds of Rs 954.38 crore were executed by Engineering Department of Noida.
Thereafter, a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Court passed an order on 16.07.2015, directing CBI to conduct investigation in all the allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money by Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, Noida / Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway Authority and other persons in regards to the transactions relating to the same.
The CBI took up the case and lodged a first information report as Case, Police Station STF, New Delhi on 30.07.2015. The investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, STF, Delhi.
Counsel for the applicants argued that after lodging of the first information report a first charge-sheet dated 15.03.2016 was filed by the CBI in the case of first information report dated 30.07.2015 in which the applicants were not named. The said charge-sheet was filed before the trial court and trial is going on before the concerned trial court.
Subsequently a supplementary charge-sheet dated 31.05.2017 was filed by the CBI in which also the applicants are not named. The same has also reached the trial court. The CBI then filed a supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2021 in which the applicants were not arrayed as accused in the same also.
It is argued that subsequently the CBI has again registered a first information report dated 17.01.2018 u/s 120-B IPC r/w 13 (2) & 13 (1) (b) & 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 Police Station STF / CBI / New Delhi in which the CBI has filed three charge-sheets in which the applicants are not named. Now in pursuance of a letter dated 17.06.2022 issued by the CBI sanction has been sought for prosecution of the applicants from the CEO Noida.
Counsel has further argued that now the Investigating Officer has telephonically called the applicants without any notice under CrPC in the first information report dated 30.07.2015 and as such they apprehend arrest.
The applicant- P. K Dixit is working as Accounts Officer whereas the applicants- Surendra Kumar Gupta and Nizamuddin are working as Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division and Assistant Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division respectively in Noida.
Counsel has also argued that a Division Bench of the Court has passed an order dated 28.09.2022 staying the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the first information report lodged in the year 2015. It is argued that the counter affidavit has been called in the said matter and the same is pending for disposal. The applicants are granted anticipatory bail.
Per contra, counsel for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that the matter is such in which although the first information report was lodged but different charge-sheets are being submitted with regards to different work orders / tenders which were allotted under conspiracy and cheating for which looking to the overall case, the Division Bench of Lucknow of the Court had directed investigation in the matter by CBI and as such after investigation separate charge-sheets are being filed.
It is further argued that the present petition is vague in as much as there is no disclosure as to what is the case against the applicants and in which offence are they needed.
It is also argued that the matter is such in which even custodial interrogation may be needed as the matter relates to loss to the State Exchequer in huge amounts.
Counsel for the CBI said that in none of the paragraphs of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application there is any averment as to how the applicant is needed in the case and what are the allegations in the matter.
Counsel for the CBI further said that although the issue of the first information report of the year 2018 is being pleaded but the same has no concern with the case as the applicants have approached the Court for seeking anticipatory bail in the first information report dated 30.07.2015. The first information report of 2018 is an entirely different first information report with regards to different offences.
Counsel for the CBI also said that in the matter itself the anticipatory bail of co accused Yadav Singh and Rakesh Kumar Jain have been rejected order dated 30.09.2022. The anticipatory bail applications deserve to be dismissed.
“After having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants were posted as the Accounts Officer, Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division and Assistant Project Engineer (E&M-I) Division in Noida. They have sought anticipatory bail in the first information report lodged on 30.07.2015. There is no disclosure in the affidavits in support of anticipatory bail applications on what material do the applicants apprehend their arrest.
As per the affidavit being the letter dated 17.06.2022 by which the CBI has sought sanction for prosecuting the applicants, it is stated therein that there is sufficient material against them. A confidential document has been sent with the said report and even a confidential document being a CBI report has been sent with the said report spelling out the allegations against the applicants. The matter relates to economic offence.
The anticipatory bail of co-accused Yadav Singh and Rakesh Kumar Jain have been rejected by the Court order dated 30.09.2022. The consideration of parameters for anticipatory bail in economic offences are all together different from other cases.
In view of the facts as stated above and the law on the subject as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the Court does not find any good ground to entertain the anticipatory bail applications”, the Court observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications.