Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Vijai Kumar Srivastava vs State Thru C.B.I./A.C.B., ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|03 February, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
As per F.I.R. during 2007-2010 in District Sant Kabir Nagar for execution of 40 works in Santha Block, huge wrongful pecuniary loss was caused to the Government Exchequer, this included the work of construction of Pakki Naali from the house of Jamaal Ahmad to the house of Teerath in Village Malha. An estimate of the said work was prepared by Ganga Prasad Srivastava, Junior Envineer, Santha Block, District Sant Kabir Nagar and was approved by late Ranveer Singh, the then Block Development Officer and for these work amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- was sanctioned, out of which Rs. 3,96,500/- were allocated for material component and labour component.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was accountant and was not in a position to make the payment or to approve the payment. The payment was made by the joint signature of Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer. The main accused who have made the payment namely Ramesh Chandra, the then B.D.O. and Jawahar Lal Saroj, Block Development Officer have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.03.2018 and 15.03.2019 passed in Bail Nos.9239/2017 and 3106 of 2019. It is further submitted that Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav died during investigation. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the order of the aforesaid co-accused persons.
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.
Shri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.
Let the applicant, Vijai Kumar Srivastava, involved in Crime Case No. 221/2017, F.I.R./RC No. 0062014A0012, under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station - C.B.I. ACB Lucknow, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 R.C.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Vijai Kumar Srivastava vs State Thru C.B.I./A.C.B., ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
03 February, 2021
Judges
  • Karunesh Singh Pawar