AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Vidyarthi, J
Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant in Case Crime No. 10 of 2021, under Sections 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow.
The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by an Inspector of Police against 12 named persons, including the applicant, and some unnamed builders and contractors etc., in furtherance of a report submitted by Special Investigating Team alleging administrative and financial irregularities committed in 137 construction works.
In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been contended that the allegation against the applicant is of having committed irregularities in construction of 13 projects including community health centres and primary health centres. However, the applicant was only posted in seven of those projects.
In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application, it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Applicant's involvement in three other cases based on the same investigation report has been disclosed in para 41 of the affidavit filed in support of the application.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that works in question were carried out during 2003-04 to 2012-13; FIR has been lodged in the year 2021; that the applicant has retired from the post of Assistant Resident Engineer on 30.09.2023 and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Ram Naresh Yadav @ Rn Yadav before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;
(ii). That 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.