# Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4319 of 2021
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajkumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-48477
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439- Bail- Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467,
468, 471 of IPC- Prevention oif Corruption
Act, 1988- Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) -
Financial irregularities committed with
criminal intent in the work of "Gomti River
5 All. Rajkumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
181
Channelization Project" and "Gomti River
Front Development" by the Irrigation
Department- The matter pertains to a
large scam of Rs.1500/- crores. During the
relevant period, the applicant was the
Junior Assistant/Clerk of the department
and prima-facie, it is found that he was
also the part and parcel of the chain of
corruption
having
been
committed
causing
a
heavy
loss
to
the
State
Exchequer.

Where the offence pertains to a serious fraud in
Government projects resulting in heavy loss to
the state exchequer and there is evidence
showing
prima
facie
involvement
of
the
applicant in the commission of the offence then
in view of the gravity of the offence and
evidence against the accused, bail cannot be
granted. (Para 15, 16)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

## Text

180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opened in the presence of Magistrate
concerned in which a large amount of
documents was found which pertain to the
said
offence
which
substantiates
the
allegations of complicity of applicant. The
documents relating to the Department of
Animal Husbandry were also recovered and
the same have been annexed as Annexure-5
to the counter affidavit. He has further
placed reliance upon the details of the CDR
of the mobile numbers of the applicant
indicating that he was in constant touch
with the co-accused person Ashish Rai and
Dilbahar Yadav from his mobile number
9415907020. The CDR is also a part of the
Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit.

CONCLUSION

15. It would be inappropriate to
discuss the evidence in depth at this stage
because it is likely to influence the trial
court but from the perusal of the evidence
collected during investigation so far, it
prima-facie appears that the applicant was
also involved in the commissioning of said
offence and no reason was found to falsely
implicate him in the present case. This is a
high profile fraud committed by the high
profile criminals having long reach with
higher echelons of the society. This is a
white collar crime and such offences are on
the rise in the prevalent social conditions.
There is a recovery of a suitcase at the
pointing out of the applicant. The CDR also
confirms the complicity of the applicant as
he was in regular touch to co-accused
Ashish Rai and Dilbahar Yadav through his
mobile.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence, complicity of accused, fraud of
huge amount, involvement of high echelons
as well as the rival submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am not inclined to
release the applicant on bail.

17. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.

19. However, it is directed that every
endeavor shall be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is
no other legal impediment.
----------
(2022)05ILR A180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4319 of 2021

Rajkumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439- Bail- Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467,
468, 471 of IPC- Prevention oif Corruption
Act, 1988- Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) -
Financial irregularities committed with
criminal intent in the work of "Gomti River
5 All. Rajkumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
181
Channelization Project" and "Gomti River
Front Development" by the Irrigation
Department- The matter pertains to a
large scam of Rs.1500/- crores. During the
relevant period, the applicant was the
Junior Assistant/Clerk of the department
and prima-facie, it is found that he was
also the part and parcel of the chain of
corruption
having
been
committed
causing
a
heavy
loss
to
the
State
Exchequer.

Where the offence pertains to a serious fraud in
Government projects resulting in heavy loss to
the state exchequer and there is evidence
showing
prima
facie
involvement
of
the
applicant in the commission of the offence then
in view of the gravity of the offence and
evidence against the accused, bail cannot be
granted. (Para 15, 16)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

1. Yashwant Sinha & ors v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC
338

2. Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI ( 2012) 1 SCC 40

3. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2018) 3
SCC 22

4. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs CBI, (2013) 7
SCC 439

5. CBI Vs A. Raja & ors., (2002) 3 SUPREME 207

6. St. of Bih. Vs Amit Kumar ( 2017) 13 SCC
751

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Nandit
Kumar
Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Pranjal Krishna, Sri Prashan Ranjan
and Sri Aviraj Raj Singh, learned counsels
for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2. By means of the present
application, the applicant seeks bail in
Criminal Misc. Case No.2079 of 2021 (CBI
Vs. Roop Singh Yadav & Others), under
Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with
substantive offences thereof arisen out of
Crime No. RC0062017A0026, registered
with
CBI,
Anti
Corruption
Branch,
Lucknow and pending before the learned
Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI, West,
Lucknow.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. In the instant case, the FIR was
registered by the CBI on the basis of order
dated 17.7.2017 of the Government of U.P.
pertaining to the financial irregularities
committed with criminal intent in the work
of "Gomti River Channelization Project"
and "Gomti River Front Development" by
the Irrigation Department. The State
Government asked for further investigation
by the CBI in Case Crime No.831 of 2017,
u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC and
Sections 7 & 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the
accused persons. It has also been alleged
that on the written complaint of one Ambuj
Dwivedi, an FIR was registered by the
local police and later on a Judicial
Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.)
Justice Alok Kumar Singh was ordered to
conduct an enquiry under the Commission
of Inquiry Act. A comprehensive enquiry
report has been submitted to the State
Government on 16.5.2017 leading to the
present FIR.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet
was filed by the CBI on 16.02.2021, u/s
120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act against the applicant and other coaccused persons and further investigation is
still
pending
pertaining
to
other
development works in the aforesaid project.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

5. Sri Nandit Srivastava, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant has submitted that the applicant is
the junior most employee in the chain and
had simply followed the orders of higher
authorities. He was only the Junior
Assistant/Clerk
in
the
Irrigation
Department. He was arrested on 19.11.2020
and the charge-sheet has been filed on
16.2.2021. Till date cognizance has not
been taken in the matter. Learned Senior
Counsel has further submitted that chargesheet was filed without obtaining sanction
for prosecution of the applicant as he is a
government
servant.
Compliance
of
mandatory provisions of Section 17A of the
PC Act has not been carried out by the CBI
before initiating the criminal prosecution
against the applicant in the present case.
Sanction for prosecution has been filed in
the Court on 15.7.2021 which is after a
delay of about five months from the filing
of the charge-sheet. There is no allegation
of tampering with the evidence against the
applicant. The alleged charge-sheet has
been filed only to deprive the applicant
statutory rights of default bail provided u/s
167 Cr.P.C.. There is no prima-facie
offence made out against him of being a
party in the criminal conspiracy with the
main accused, Roop Singh Yadav. The
applicant is not named in the FIR.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has relied
upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case
of Yashwant Sinha & Others v. Central
Bureau of Investigation1, wherein it has
been held that no Police Officer is permitted
to conduct any enquiry or investigation into
any offence committed by a public servant
where the offence alleged is relatable to any
recommendation made or decision taken by
the public servant in discharge of his public
functions without previous approval, inter
alia, of the authority competent to remove the
public servant from his Office at the time
when the offence was alleged to have been
committed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has also submitted that the applicant
was not in a position to do any favour or any
dis-favour to any of the Contractor as he was
only the Junior Assistant having no authority
to do anything worthwhile. He has also
placed much reliance on the judgement of
Apex Court passed in Sanjay Chandra Vs.
CBI2, wherein it has been opined that the
object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. The courts owe more than
verbal
respect
to
the
principle
that
punishment begins after conviction, and that
every man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has also submitted that the
eligibility
and
non-eligibility
of
the
firms/companies in the tender process was to
be decided at a later stage by the concerned
authorities and the applicant had no role in it.
He has then placed much reliance upon the
judgement of Apex Court in Dataram Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and another3. Learned
Senior Counsel has further stated that there is
no likelihood of the applicant for tampering
with the evidence or influencing any
witnesses who are all public servant.

9. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently
opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
contending that the work of "Intercepting
5 All. Rajkumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
183
Trunk Drain" was awarded to M/s K K Spun
Pipe Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi despite not
meeting out the technical qualification criteria
of annual turnover and also did not submit
the mandatory certificates on financial fitness
to be issued by the District Collector. The
bank guarantee used by the L-2 firm M/s
Brand Eagles Longian JV was made from the
account of L-1 firm M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt.
Ltd.. The third party M/s Patel Engineering
has categorically denied to have taken part in
the tender process. The L-2 firm has entered
into agreement with M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt.
Ltd. for participating in tender procedure as
such bank guarantee was prepared from the
account of M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd. but
later
on
when
the
manufacturers
unauthorizedly allowed taking part in the
tender procedure had submitted its separate
bid without informing M/s Brand Eagles
Longian JV. As such there was a cartel
between M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd. and
M/s Brand Eagle Longian JV in pursuance of
which the bank guarantee of Rs.4.6 crores of
the L-2 firm M/s Brand Eagle Longian JV
was made from the bank account of L-1 firm
M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd. The using of
bank guarantee of one firm by another proves
that the entire Tender process was a sham.

10. Sri Singh has further stated that
after investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed against the main accused Roop
Singh Yadav, Executive Engineer, Raj
Kumar Yadav, Junior Assistant (present
applicant), Himanshu Gupta, Director of
M/s K K Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd., Kavish
Gupta, Director of M/s K K Spun Pipe
Pvt. Ltd. and Badri Shrestha, Senior
Advisor of M/s Brand Eagles Longjian
JV. Further investigation is also going on
in respect to other allegations in the
instant matter coupled with 11 remaining
works.

11. Sri Singh has also submitted that
the applicant had involved in the said
corruption and he had exclusive knowledge
of the offence. His name has come up
during the course of investigation as he was
involved in criminal conspiracy with other
co-accused persons. The applicant himself
has written under his signature that tender
documents have been sold by him to M/s
Patel Engineering Limited. However, M/s
Patel Engineering Limited denied to have
purchased the said tender documents. M/s
Patel
Engineering
Limited
had
not
deposited any earnest money which further
confirmed the fact that the company had
not submitted the tender documents and its
forged documents were used by the
applicant in the criminal conspiracy with
co-accused Roop Singh Yadav with an
intention to pool the tender in favour of the
co-accused private persons. The applicant
has wrongly shown the sale of tender
documents to M/s Patel Engineering
Limited and had arranged the photocopy of
the documents of M/s Patel Engineering
Limited which was submitted for the work
of Diaphragm Wall. He has further stated
that in the present case, tender of Rs.258.69
crore
has
been
given
to
ineligible
company/person
which
was
later
on
extended to Rs.333 crores.

12. Sri Singh has also placed much
reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI4,
wherein it has been held that economic
offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds needs
to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
serious threat to the financial health of the
country.

13. So far as the non-compliance of
Section 17A of the PC Act is concerned,
Sri Singh has stated that though the
applicant was not named in the FIR but
his role has surfaced on 10.1.2018 before
the amendment made in the PC Act, 1988
in the year 2018 which is effective from
26.7.2018.
Investigation
against
the
applicant started well before the said
amendment in the PC Act. The said
amendment do not have retrospective
effect as such there is no need of
permission u/s 17A of PC Act (as
amended in 2018) against the applicant.
In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgement of
Delhi High Court in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Raja &
Others5 wherein it has been observed as
under:-

"61. In view of the Hon'ble Apex
Court decision in State of Telangana
(supra) and decision of Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Madhu Koda (Supra), this
Court is of the opinion that amending Act
does not apply to the offences which have
already taken place under the PC Act,
1988
and
moreover,
Prevention
of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 does
not reveal any intention of destroying the
earlier provisions and there is no
intention to obliterate the earlier law,
therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no impediment in hearing the
criminal leave to appeal, since the
offences in question are alleged to have
been committed prior to the coming into
force
of
Prevention
of
Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018."

14. Sri Singh has also relied upon
the jugement of Apex Court in the case of
State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar6,
wherein it has been held that while
considering the bail involving socioeconomic offences stringent parameters
should be applied.

CONCLUSION

15. The matter pertains to a large
scam of Rs.1500/- crores. During the
relevant period, the applicant was the
Junior Assistant/Clerk of the department
and prima-facie, it is found that he was also
the part and parcel of the chain of
corruption having been committed causing
a heavy loss to the State Exchequer.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence, embezzlement of huge amount,
complicity of accused as well as the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, I am not inclined to release the
applicant on bail.

17. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.

18. However, it is directed that every
endeavor shall be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is
no other legal impediment, within a period
of one year from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

19. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
5 All. Gulam Sarvar Vs. State of U.P.
185
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
----------
(2022)05ILR A185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5491 of 2019

Gulam Sarvar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohemmed Amir Naqvi, Amjad Siddiqui,
Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Kapil Mishra, M.
Usman Siddiqui

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., ASG, SB Pandey

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-
Section
439-
Bail-
Relevant
considerations- It would be inappropriate
to discuss the evidence in depth at this
stage because it is likely to influence the
trial court but from the perusal of the
evidence collected during investigation
and the charge-sheet, it appears that the
complicity
of
the
applicant
is
well
established by the statements of the
Informant
-
In
the
changing
social
circumstances, it has now become obvious
that nobody dares to depose against the
dreaded and hardened criminals out of
fear. The Informant, who himself is a
victim could garner some courage as some
point of time to depose against such high
profile criminals. The crime seems to have
been committed after a well orchestrated
plan to deprive the Informant/victim of
his valuable assets and the culpability of
applicant cannot be ruled out from the
evidence adduced- It is quite clear that an
order of bail cannot be granted in an
arbitrary or fanciful manner. A ratio
decidendi of the judgement of the Apex
Court in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State
(N.C.T.) of Delhi and another2, has stated
that in serious crimes, the mere fact that
the accused is in custody for more than
one
year,
may
not
be
a
relevant
consideration to release the accused on
bail.

Where there is prima facie evidence against the
accused
showing his involvement in the
commission of the offence and he is a member
of a dreaded and organised criminal gang, then
merely
because
the
oral
evidence
came
belatedly or that the accused is under
incarceration for more than one year, would in
itself not be a ground to enlarge him on bail.
(Para 15, 16, 17)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State (N.C.T.) of Delhi &
anr., ( 2018) 12 SCC 129

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kapil
Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the CBI and also perused the
material available on record.

2. By means of the present bail
application, the applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.810 of 2018, under Sections 147,
149, 386, 329, 420, 467, 468, 471, 394,
506, 120-B, 364-A IPC, Police Station-
Krishna Nagar, District- Lucknow, during
the pendency of trial.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Facts in brief giving rise to the
present
application
are
that
the
Informant/victim
is
a
resident
of