Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate and learned A.S.G assisted by Mr. Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, the applicant was the Project Director of the D.R.D.A., Balrampur and was working under the administrative control of the Chief Development Officer (C.D.O.). The applicant was one of the members of Purchase Committee and the comparative charge prepared, was signed by only two members of the Purchase Committee, applicant and one Brij Kishore Lal Srivastava, Project Economist. It has also been argued that role of the applicant is limited to the extent of forwarding his recommendation to the C.D.O. and the total loss occurred to the government exchequer is Rs.1,66,400/- in procurement of job cards. There is no evidence regarding cheating on part of the applicant and he has not been beneficiary of any amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed that the applicant has already retired from service in the year 2016 with a clean service record and at present, he is 63 years of age. The co-accused Sachidanand Dubey has already been granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9017/2018 and other co-accused Athar Pervez has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2019 passed in Bail No.1205 of 2019.
The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2019. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Mr. S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate and learned A.S.G appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant on the premise that he has been a part of the conspiracy along with other co-accused and caused a huge loss to the government exchequer.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No.710/2018, RC No. 0062014A0008, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Anupam S/-