Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4068 of 2021 Applicant :- Ratan Kumar Saraswat Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No. 215 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Firozabad (Dakshin) District Firozabad.
The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant for reasons which stand recorded hereinafter.
The prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other allied provisions of the IPC formed subject matter of Application U/S 482 No. 36633 of 2013 preferred by the applicant and other co accused. The challenge to the proceeding was rejected on merits by a learned Judge of the Court in terms of the judgment dated 22 January 2021.
While dealing with the contentions which were raised by the applicants there to the prosecution, the following pertinent observations were made:-
"Reverting to the facts of the instant case, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show from the so called report of the Technical Audit Cell that complicity and culpability of the applicants was not found. The specific allegation against the applicants is that twice the amount over and above the sanctioned rate was spent. Further, the accused persons had made payment to the labourers and the tractors engaged for the Scheme in-cash by preparing false and manufactured documents. Reliance has been placed on the communication dated 30 May 2005, of Additional Director Agriculture (Soil Conservation), U.P., Agra Division, Agra, addressed to Director Agriculture, U.P. Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, wherein, request was made that the investigation initiated after lodging of the F.I.R. be halted. It is noted therein that the Scheme for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99, the EOW was of the opinion that twice the sanctioned rate was released, whereas, the entire scheme was evaluated in 2001-2002. The EOW wrongly computed the work at a flat rate at Rs. 3100/-, whereas, as per norms the payment cannot exceed Rs.7200/- per hectare. In other words, it was stated in the communication that average of the different payments made per hectare would have to be taken and that sum should not exceed the upper limit, that is, Rs. 7200/- per hectare. Pursuant thereof, Director of Agriculture, vide communication dated 2 June 2005, placing reliance upon the letter of the Additional Director of Agriculture, requested the Government not to prosecute the officers of the department as there was no loss caused to the Government. It appears that the State Government did not act upon the communication and on 6 July 2005, F.I.R. came to be lodged. Thereafter, sanction was granted by the State Government for prosecution.
It is evident from the facts emerging from the material placed on record that no departmental proceeding, and/or disciplinary enquiry was ever conducted against the accused persons, including, the applicants. Further, the material relied upon by the I.O. is not part of any such proceedings. The prosecution is based upon an independent enquiry got conducted by the State Government by the E.O.W.. It is not the case of the applicant/accused that the prosecution is based upon the very same material relied upon by the department against the accused that was part of departmental statutory adjudication proceeding. The departmental enquiry being relied upon by the applicants was never accepted by the Government. The Government, on the contrary got an independent enquiry conducted to find out whether loss was caused to the Government. The final report came to be accepted by the Government. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant to submit that the applicants have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry lacks merit. The petition is bereft of the essential pleadings and foundation to that effect. The submission, accordingly, is rejected.
...
From the facts narrated herein above, it is evident that the delay, if any, has been caused by the applicants themselves, and the fault cannot be attributed to the prosecution of having unnecessarily/ deliberately caused delay in pursing the prosecution. The trial has not proceeded after the stage of cognizance as restrain orders were operating and the accused/applicants have not submitted to the trial. The delay perse, in the circumstances, has not violated the rights of the applicants to speedy trial.
The applications being devoid of merit is, accordingly, rejected.
The applicants to surrender before the trial court within three weeks from date. The trial court shall make an endevour to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial, at the earliest possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no other legal impediment."
The learned Judge while proceeding to dismiss the 482 petition further directed the applicant to surrender before the trial Court which was requested to endeavour to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial as early as possible.
The aforesaid decision rendered on merits of the 482 petition has never been assailed or questioned by the applicant.
Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations which have prima facie been found to be borne out in the judgment rendered inter partes, the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 faraz