# Roop Singh Yadav v. C.B.I. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 714
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6700 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-singh-yadav-v-c-b-i-opp-party-47850
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Bail- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
409, 420,467, 468, 471 & 34 Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 & 13Allegation-corruption
and
large
scale
irregularities committed in implementation of
the Project "Gomti River Front DevelopmentAccused-was Executive Engineer from the very
beginning till 31st December, 2016-did not get
the centage charge amounting to Rs. 14.42
Crores deposited-of work done during his
tenure-Inquiry Committee opined-Applicant is
responsible for not depositing the centage
charge-unqualified
and
un-experienced
companies were chosen
-whole tendering
process was an eye wash.

Bail rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,279 of 44,908. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39279 for what follows._

714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

60. It may, however, be mentioned here
that an application under Section 9(1) of the
Act of 1996 would be maintainable before or
during arbitral proceedings or at any time
after making of the arbitral award but before
it is enforced in accordance with Section 36
unless, in view of the provisions of Section
9(3) once the arbitral tribunal has been
constituted,
the
Court
finds
that
circumstances exist which may not render the
remedy provided under Section 17 of the Act
of 1996 efficacious. Therefore, though such
an
application
would
accordingly
be
maintainable at any of the three stages
mentioned in Section 9(1), however, an
applicant would not be entitled to relief
where the breach of an obligation arises from
a contract, the performance of which cannot
be specifically enforced. This issue has been
considered only to explain the aspect of
maintainability that was dealt with by the
learned Judge.

61. It is pertinent to consider the
argument raised by the learned counsel for
the respondent that when an application
under Section 9(1) is filed before the
commencement
of
the
arbitration
proceedings, there has to be a manifest
intention on part of the applicant to take
recourse
to
arbitral
proceedings.
The
judgments of Sundaram Finance Ltd. and
Firm Ashok Traders (supra), that have
been referred to by the learned counsel for the
respondent, were in respect of proceedings
initiated prior to insertion of sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 9 of the Act of 1996 by
means of Act No.3 of 2016. As quoted above,
sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that
where, before the commencement of the
arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order
for any interim measure of protection under
sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall
be commenced within a period of ninety days
from the date of such order or within such
further time as the Court may determine. In
light of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act
of
1996,
there
is
a
mandate
for
commencement
of
arbitral
proceedings
within a period of ninety days from the date
of an order under sub-section (1) of Section
9. However, the period of ninety days
provided by the provision may be extended
by the Court for such further time as it may
determine under the facts and circumstances
of that case. Be that as it may, a party
invoking Section 9 of the Act of 1996 must
be ready and willing to go to arbitration as
held in Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India
Ltd. vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.18

62. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is open for the
appellant to raise any claim, dispute or
differences between it and the respondent by
resorting to arbitration as provided in the LOI
itself. In that event, the arbitral tribunal shall
decide the dispute and differences between
the parties, uninfluenced by any observation
made in this judgment. All pleas and
contentions are left open for being raised
before the arbitral tribunal. However, the
appellant has failed to demonstrate any
plausible ground for grant of an interim
injunction as envisaged in Section 9 of the
Act, 1996. This appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 714
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6700 of 2021

Roop Singh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opp. Party
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
715
Counsel for the Applicant:
Ratnesh Chandra, Purnendu Chakravarty, Sunil
Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Bail- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
409, 420,467, 468, 471 & 34 Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 & 13Allegation-corruption
and
large
scale
irregularities committed in implementation of
the Project "Gomti River Front DevelopmentAccused-was Executive Engineer from the very
beginning till 31st December, 2016-did not get
the centage charge amounting to Rs. 14.42
Crores deposited-of work done during his
tenure-Inquiry Committee opined-Applicant is
responsible for not depositing the centage
charge-unqualified
and
un-experienced
companies were chosen
-whole tendering
process was an eye wash.

Bail rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. St.of Kerala Vs Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784

2. Sidhique Kappan Vs St.of U.P.), Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7844 of 2022

3. Raj Kumar Yadav Vs St.Thru CBI/ACB,
Lucknow, 2022 SCC OnLine All 249

4. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439

5. St.of Bihar & anr. Vs Amit Kumar @ Bachcha
Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751

6. Rohit Tandaon Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
(2018) 11 SCC 46

7. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Nittin
Johari & anr., (2019) 9 SCC 165

8. Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs St.of Mah.
& anr., (2007) 1 SCC 242

9. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & anr., (2004) 7 SCC 528
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present application under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"CrPC") has been filed, seeking bail in
Criminal Misc Case No.181 of 2021 (CBI
Vs. Roop Singh Yadav and others), arising
out of FIR No.RC0062017A0026, lodged
at Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow
under Sections 120-B read with Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
"IPC") and Section 13 (2) read with
Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as "PC Act") and substantive offences,
pending in the Court of Special Judge,
Anti-Corruption, CBI (West), U.P., District
Lucknow.

2. This bail application has been filed
after the learned Special Judge, AntiCorruption, CBI (West), Lucknow has
rejected the bail application of the accusedapplicant vide order dated 14.06.2021.

3. Initially, on 19.06.2017 an F.I.R. ,
at Crime No.0831 of 2017 was lodged
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
34 IPC and Sections 7 and 13 PC Act at
Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.
on the subject matter i.e. corruption and
large scale irregularities committed in
implementation of the Project "Gomti River
Front Development" .

4. The State Government decided to
handover the investigation to the CBI vide
request letter dated 21.07.2017 sent by Mr.
Arvind Kumar, Principal Secretary, Home,
Government of U.P. The CBI took over the
investigation
and
regular
case
got
registered, as mentioned above.
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The case pertains to corruption,
irregularities, fraud and criminal intent in
implementation
of
"Gomti
River
Channelization Project" and "Gomti River
Front Development" implemented by the
Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P.

6. A large number of irregularities in
implementation of the Project to earn Crores
of rupees illegally by committing fraud,
forgery and corruption came to light and the
government, initially, appointed an Inquiry
Committee headed by a retired High Court
Judge vide order dated 04.04.2017 issued by
His Excellency, the Governor of U.P.

7. The said Committee included Justice
Alok Kr. Singh, Former Judge of this Court,
as Chairman and two members, Prof. U.K.
Chaudhary, retired from I.I.T., B.H.U,
Varanasi, who is an expert in Reverine
Engineering, and Professor, A.K. Garg, from
Faculty of Finance, I.I.M, Lucknow, as
experts.

8. The said Committee submitted its
detailed report dated 16.05.2017, pointing out
several gross irregularities, misuse of powers
and positions etc. committed by the
officers/officials in implementing the said
Project and causing huge loss to the State
Exchequer.

9. Before the work was started, the
concerned Minister, heading the Irrigation
Department, Principal Secretary, Irrigation
Department and the Senior Engineers of the
said Department visited China, Japan,
Malaysia, Singapore, Sough-Korea and
Austria. An estimate of Rs. 747.49 Crores
was submitted by the Irrigation Department
to the Government on 04.02.2015, which
was
approved
by
the
Cabinet
on
17.03.2015.

10. A High Level Task Force, under the
Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, which also
included Principal Secretary of the Irrigation
Department, was constituted on 25.03.2015.
From 08.05.2015 to 22.02.2017, 23 meetings
of this Task Force took place. A revised
estimate of Rs.1990.24 Crores was submitted
by
the
Irrigation
Department
to
the
Government. However, the Cabinet, after
taking opinion from Finance & Expenditure
Committee, approved the budget for the said
project at Rs.1513.51 Crores which was
communicated by the Government to the
Irrigation Department on 25.07.2016.

11. In the revised plan, the time limit of
two years was fixed, though in earlier plan no
time limit was fixed. Thus, the work ought to
have been completed by March/April, 2017
inasmuch as first budget of the Project was
approved in March/April, 2015. For such a
huge Project, involving thousands crores of
rupees, no consultancy firm/company was
appointed.

12. The Committee, during its inquiry,
took statements from Junior Engineers to
Chief
Engineers
of
the
Department,
Professors of I.I.T., Gandhinagar, Delhi and
Roorki,
Senior
Vice-Chairman
and
Consultant of Gammon India, Proprietors
and Consultants of M/s KK Spun and M/s
Charoo Consultancy, Associated Directors
and Associate of A.E. Com, Member
Secretary of the Pollution Control Board
and
Chairman
of
S.E.E.A.A.
The
Committee was required to give its finding
on following five points.

"i. Verification of budget/cost of the
project of Gomti River Channelization
Project;

ii. Responsibilities were to be fixed of
the persons for spending 95% of the budget
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
717
on the Project, but the work was completed
only upto 60%;

iii. Suitability/appropriateness of the
Project for environment protection;

iv. Position of payment in accordance
with the rules against the sanctioned items;
and

v. Financial irregularities committed
in implementation of the said Project."

13. The Committee opined that
centage charge @ 6.875%, which came
around 100 Crores, was not deposited. The
Projected started in March/April, 2015 and
after one year i.e. on 04.05.2016, the
Engineer, In-charge in implementing the
Project requested the High Level Task
Force to waive 100 Cores as centage
charge.

14. The High Level Task Force placed
the matter before the Cabinet, however, the
Cabinet rejected the proposal and vide
letter
dated
15.03.2017
Government
intimated to the Chief Engineer and Head
of Department that in view of the
government orders, the deposition of
centage charges was a must. It was further
directed that after taking the necessary
action, the Government should be informed
accordingly.

15. The Committee found that no
centage charge was deposited from March
2015 to December 2015 and during this
period, the present accused-applicant, Roop
Singh Yadav was the Executive Engineer,
in-charge of the project. First time, in
January, 2017 centage charge amounting to
Rs. 14.42 Crores could get deposited by the
then Executive Engineer in respect of
works done during his tenure.

16. The accused-applicant was
Executive
Engineer
from
the
very
beginning till 31st December, 2016 and he
did not get the centage charge amounting to
Rs. 100 Crores deposited. The accusedapplicant admitted before the Committee
that centage charges were not deposited in
anticipation
of
waiver
from
the
Government. Even after the Government
refused the waiver of the centage charges,
centage charges were not deposited.

17. The Committee further opined
that excluding amount for centage charges,
labour-cess,
maintenance
charge
and
preliminary work, total Rs. 1314 Crores
was allotted for different items of the
Project. However, against Rs.1314 Cores,
Rs.1384 Crores had been spent. Thus, Rs.
72 Crores more was spent than what was
sanctioned. The Committee was of the
opinion that it was the accused-applicant
who was responsible for not depositing the
centage charges as per the government
order as it was the responsibility of the
concerned Executive Engineer.

18. The Committee further recorded the
finding that the unqualified and unexperienced companies were chosen and
whole tendering process was a complete
eye-wash and bogus. The companies were
chosen in per-determined manner for the
work and for this, the present accusedapplicant, who was also looking after the
additional
work
of
Superintending
Engineer, was responsible and he only
accepted the tenders in a mala fide and
motivated manner, against the principles of
just,
fair
and
valid
procedure. The
payments were made for some items more
than 100 times than the sanctioned budget
for such items and for this also, the
Committee found the present accusedapplicant
responsible. The
Committee
further found that work progress was
extremely wanting despite spending more
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than sanctioned amount. In this gigantic
corruption,
the
accused-applicant's
involvement has been detailed vividly by
the said Committee.

19. The CBI, in its charge-sheet, has
found that the present accused-applicant, in
pursuance to the decision taken by the High
Level Task Force for construction of
intercepting trunk drains on both banks of
Gomti River, a note was put up by the
accused-applicant,
who
was
the
then
Executive Engineer for construction of the
intercepting trunk drain on both banks of
Gomti River in Lucknow city at an estimated
cost of Rs. 230 Crores referring to the
recommendation of the Chief Engineer's
Committee. In spite of the prevalence of eprocurement system during the relevant
period, the accused-applicant proposed that eprocurement system should not be followed
as many experienced contractors registered
with the department would not be be able to
take part in the tender process thereby
depriving the benefit of competitive rates.
The accused-applicant proposed to get the
work done through the registered contractors
of the department, and the said proposal was
approved by Mr. S.N. Sharma, the then Chief
Engineer on 06.08.2015. Mr. S.N. Sharma,
the then Chief Engineer was not authorized to
approve NIT for the work of intercepting
trunk drain as only the Chief Minister was
authorized to enhance the scope of the work
and the project cost.

20. The CBI, in its investigation,
further revealed that NIT in respect of the
work of intercepting trunk drain was
published in 7 newspapers on 11.08.2015.
Tenders were to be submitted by 'AA'
category of contractors, registered with the
Irrigation Department till 20.08.2015 i.e.
the date of opening of tender by the Tender
Committee in presence of the tenderers.

21. The tender date was extended
twice, first time upto 29.08.2015 and
second
time
upto
07.09.2015
to
accommodate L-1 i.e. M/s K.K. Spun Pipes
Private Limited and L-2, M/s Brand Eagles
Longjian JV which were not registered with
the Irrigation Department earlier and were
registered only on the last date of
submission of tender and its opening i.e.
07.09.2015. These two firms stood L-1 and
L-2. It has been alleged that both the said
firms
did
not
fulfill
the
eligibility
qualifications at the time of submitting the
tender and investigation revealed that the
name & style of M/s K.K. Spun Pipes
Private Limited had been changed as M/s
K.K. Spun India Limited. The conditions
were relaxed to make M/s K.K. Spun Pipes
Private Limited as eligible and a note was
put up on 21.08.2015 by the accusedapplicant to allow the manufacturers also to
participate in the tendering process along
with the registered contractors. The said
note
was
to
change
eligibility
the
conditions of NIT which was already
published. The said note was approved by
the then Chief Engineer, Mr. S.N. Sharma
even though he was not authorized to
approve any relaxation pertaining to the
registration of the contractors in terms of
the relevant government orders. Any such
relaxation could have been accorded only
with the approval of the government. This
relaxation in the tender conditions was not
even published in any newspaper and only
a notice was put up on the notice board of
the office of the Irrigation Department.

22. The CBI further found that after
relaxation of tender conditions, three
parties, namely, (1) M/s K.K. Spun Pipes
Private Limited, (2) M/s Brand Eagle
Longjian JV; and (3) M/s Patel Engineering
Limited were shown to have purchased the
tender forms on 26.08.2015. All these firms
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
719
were not registered with the Irrigation
Department but tenders were given to them
and the tender conditions were relaxed by
the aforesaid note in order to facilitate them
to participate in the tendering process and
award the contract to M/s K.K. Spun Pipes
Private Limited. It is stated that fake sale of
tender documents was made to M/s Patel
Engineering Limited on the same day. The
tenders were sold by Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav,
co-accused, who made en entry "sold by
me to M/s Patel Engineering Limited" in
his own hand-writing under his signatures.
L-1 and L-2 firms applied for registration
on 04.09.2015 and were registered on
07.09.2015 i.e. last date of submission of
tender and opening of the tender .

23. It is alleged that pursuant to criminal
conspiracy, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Director,
M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited vide
his letter dated 26.08.2015 addressed to the
Superintending
Engineer,
XII
Circle
illegally authorized his representative, Mr.
Surjeet Srivastava, Company Secretary to
purchase the tender documents even though
the company was not registered with the
Irrigation Department and was not eligible
to participate in the tendering process.
Similarly, vide his letter dated 25.08.2015,
Mr. Badri Shreshtha, Senior Adviser of M/s
Brand Eagles Longjian JV had illegally
authorized his representative, Mr. Shahid to
purchase the tender documents even though
the company was not registered with the
Irrigation Department and was not eligible
to participate in the tender. It was a cartel
formation between M/s M/s K.K. Spun
Pipes Private Limited and M/s Brand Eagle
Longjian JV. The bank guarantee of Rs.4.6
Crores of the L-2 firm i.e. M/s Brand Eagle
Longjian JV was made from the bank
account of the L-1 company, M/s M/s K.K.
Spun
Pipes
Private
Limited.
On
03.09.2015, these companies executed a
sub-contract agreement in which it was
agreed that M/s Brand Eagles Longjian JV
was intending to bid for the work of
construction of intercepting trunk drain and
pass-on the entire work to M/s K.K. Spun
Pipes Private Limited for execution and in
lieu thereof, M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private
Limited agreed to provide bank guarantee
of Rs. 4.6 Crores for the bid contract.

24. The investigation conducted by
the CBI also revealed that in order to award
the work to M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private
Limited forged documents of the 3rd
company, M/s Patel Engineering Limited
were used in order to fulfill the quorum of
three parties. The documents used in the
tender documents of M/s Patel Engineering
in the work of intercepting trunk drain were
photocopies of documents submitted by the
said company during its participation in
tender procedure for work of construction
of Diaphragm wall earlier. The company,
M/s Patel Engineering Limited had denied
having purchased/submitted the tender
documents for the work of intercepting
trunk drain.

25. The present accused-applicant
directed Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, the then
Junior Assistant in the office, to show the
sale of tender documents to M/s Patel
Engineering Limited and put up forged
papers. It is the accused-applicant, who put
up forged papers on behalf of M/s Patel
Engineering
Limited
by
obtaining
photocopies from the earlier tenders
submitted
by
M/s
Patel
Engineering
Limited for other work. No earnest money
was
found
deposited
by
M/s
Patel
Engineering Limited, and it had also not
filled the rates in the tender documents. The
present accused-applicant was master-mind
and responsible for this forgery to favour of
cartel of M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Limited and M/s Brand Eagles Longjian
JV.

26. The investigation further revealed
that the bid of M/s Patel Engineering
Limited was rejected on technical grounds
and rates of M/s Brand Eagles Longjian JV
and M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited
were found to be L-2 and L-1 respectively.
After opening of the tender on 07.09.2015,
the rates were written on the comparative
chart by said Raj Kumar Yadav on dictation
of the present accused-applicant. The bids
were not evaluated by Technical Evaluation
Committee and despite being not qualified,
the present accused-applicant invited M/s
K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited to execute
the agreement. An agreement was executed
between M/s K.K. Spun Pipe Private
Limited and the present accused-applicant
in the capacity of Superintending Engineer
for
completion
of
construction
of
intercepting trunk drain at an estimated cost
of Rs.285.69 Crores within the stipulated
period of one year. Against already high
cost of Rs.285.69 Crores, the payment of
Rs.337.32 Crores was made to M/s K.K.
Spun
Pipes
Private
Limited
without
obtaining any approval for the cost
escalation from the Chief Minister or the
Cabinet or any approval for increasing the
length of the intercepting trunk drain from
27 kilometers to 32.8 kilometers. The
accused-applicant
did
not
obtain
performance guarantee of Rs.5.77 Crores
from M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited
before execution of the agreement and he
obtained earnest money of Rs.14.28 Crores
instead of Rs.28.57 Crores, which was 50%
of the earnest money.

27. The investigation had disclosed the
commission of offences by Roop Singh
Yadav, present accused-applicant, Raj Kumar
Yadav, Himanshu Gupta and Kavish Gupta,
Directors of M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private
Limited, Badri Shreshtha, Senior Adviser,
M/s Brand Eagles Longjiyan JV, besides M/s
K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited punishable
under Section 120-B read with Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read
with
Sections
13(1)(d)
PC
Act
and
substantive offences thereof.

28. Heard Mr. Harshveer Pratap
Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel,
appearing for the accused-applicant, as well
as Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel,
assisted by Mr. Akhilendra Singh, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondent - CBI,
and perused the entire record.

29. On behalf of the accused-applicant,
Mr. Harshveer Pratap Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel has submitted that the accusedapplicant is in jail since 20.11.2020;
investigation is complete and charge-sheet
has been filed. It has been further submitted
that the work of intercepting trunk drain done
by M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private Limited is of
very good quality and leakages had been
found at joint of barrel no. 14 and 18 in the
length of 28 kilometers intercepting trunk
drain. Only recovery of Rs.6,38,150/- under
clause 18(A) of the contract has been
recommended to be recovered from the
contractor M/s K.K. Spun Pipes Private
Limited. It has been further submitted that the
investigation against co-accused is still
pending and conclusion of the trial will take a
long time. The accused-applicant cannot be
kept in jail till the trial gets concluded
inasmuch as there is no likelihood of
completion of the trial at an early stage.

30. On behalf of the accusedapplicant, the learned Senior Counsel, has
further submitted that the accused-applicant
is not keeping good health and his further
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
721
detention is neither desirable nor in the
interest of justice. It has been further
submitted that the delay in trial itself is an
important factor for consideration while
granting bail. Looking at the long custody
of the accused-applicant, the accusedapplicant may be enlarged on bail.

31. To buttress his submission, the
learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
accused-applicant has placed reliance upon
the judgment in the case reported in (2011)
1 SCC 784 (State of Kerala Vs. Raneef as
well as judgment and order dated 9th
September, 2022 passed by the Supreme
Court in Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.7844 of 2022 (Sidhique
Kappan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).

32. On behalf of the respondent -
CBI, it has been submitted by Mr. Anurag
Kumar Singh that the bail application of
co-accused has already been rejected by
this Court vide judgment and order dated
29th April, 2022 reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine All 249 (Raj Kumar Yadav Vs.
State Thru CBI/ACB, Lucknow). It has
been further submitted that the accusedapplicant's involvement in commission of
the irregularities, fraud and forgery has
been
found
in
four
items
i.e.
(1)
construction
of
diaphragm
wall
(2)
construction of intercepting trunk drain, (3)
construction of rubber dam and (4)
preparation of vision document involving
amount of Rs. 1055 Crores, covering 12
agreements executed under 4 NITs during
2015-16 and the accused-applicant has
been signatory of those agreements. It has
been further submitted that in this gigantic
fraud and corruption, the accused-applicant
has been one of the main architects in
looting the public money in the name of
Gomti River Channelization Project and
Gomti River Front Development. Public
money amounting to Rs.337.32 Crores had
been transferred by the accused-applicant
to a firm without requiring authorization by
the competent authority and he has caused
loss of huge proportions to the State
Exchequer. The economic crimes of such
mammoth scale and width are craftily
planned and executed. It is well settled that
economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. While
granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, magnitude and
gravity of offence and nature of evidence in
support of accusations. The Supreme Court
in the case reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439
(Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation) has opined in
paragraphs 34 and 35 as under:-

"34. Economic offences constitute a
class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting
the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has
to keep in mind the nature of accusations,
the nature of evidence in support thereof,
the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations."

33. The Supreme Court in the case
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751 (State of
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias
Bachcha Rai) in paragraphs-9 and 13,
while considering the bail application of an
accused involved in economic offence of
huge magnitude, has held as under:-

"9. We are conscious of the fact that
the accused is charged with economic
offences of huge magnitude and is alleged
to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is
alleged that the respondent-accused is
involved in tampering with the answer
sheets by illegal means and interfering with
the
examination
system
of
Bihar
Intermediate
Examination,
2016
and
thereby securing top ranks, for his
daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai
College, in the said examination. During
the investigation when a search team
raided his place, various documents
relating to property and land to the tune of
Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs
20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this,
allegedly a large number of written answer
sheets of various students, letterheads and
rubber stamps of several authorities, admit
cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found
which establishes a prima facie case
against the respondent. The allegations
against the respondent are very serious in
nature, which are reflected from the
excerpts of the case diary. We are also
conscious of the fact that the offences
alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the
credibility of the education system of the
State of Bihar.

13. We are also conscious that if
undeserving candidates are allowed to top
exams by corrupt means, not only will the
society
be
deprived
of
deserving
candidates, but it will be unfair for those
students who have honestly worked hard
for one whole year and are ultimately
disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent
practices prevalent in those examinations.
It is well settled that socio-economic
offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in
the matter of bail [Nimmagadda Prasad v.
CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 575; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri)
552] . Usually socio-economic offence has
deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the
moral fibre of the society and causing
irreparable harm, needs to be considered
seriously."

34. In the case reported in (2018) 11
SCC 46 (Rohit Tandaon Vs. Directorate
of Enforcement) the Supreme Court has
again reiterated the consistent view that
economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences, affecting
the economy of the country as a whole.
Paragraphs-21 and 22, which are relevant,
are extracted hereunder:-

"21. The consistent view taken by this
Court is that economic offences having
deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a
whole and thereby posing serious threat to
the financial health of the country. Further,
when attempt is made to project the
proceeds of crime as untainted money and
also that the allegations may not ultimately
be established, but having been made, the
burden of proof that the monies were not
the proceeds of crime and were not,
therefore, tainted shifts on the accused
persons under Section 24 of the 2002 Act.

22. It is not necessary to multiply the
authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the
2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no
more res integra. The decision in Ranjitsing
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
723
Brahmajeetsing
Sharma
v.
State
of
Maharashtra
[Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5
SCC 294 : (2005) SCC (Cri) 1057] and State
of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna
Shetty [State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath
Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561 : (2013)
1 SCC (Cri) 105] dealt with an analogous
provision in the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999. It has been
expounded that the Court at the stage of
considering the application for grant of bail,
shall consider the question from the angle as
to whether the accused was possessed of the
requisite mens rea. The Court is not required
to record a positive finding that the accused
had not committed an offence under the Act.
The Court ought to maintain a delicate
balance between a judgment of acquittal and
conviction and an order granting bail much
before commencement of trial. The duty of the
Court at this stage is not to weigh the
evidence meticulously but to arrive at a
finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
Further, the Court is required to record a
finding as to the possibility of the accused
committing a crime which is an offence under
the Act after grant of bail."

35. Again, in the case reported in
(2019) 9 SCC 165 (Serious Fraud
Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and
another), the Supreme Court has held that
stringent view should be taken by the Court
towards grant of bail with respect to
economic offences. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26
and 27 of Serious Fraud Investigation
Office Vs. Nitin Johari and another's case
(supra) are extracted hereunder:-

" 24. At this juncture, it must be noted
that even as per Section 212(7) of the
Companies Act, the limitation under Section
212(6) with respect to grant of bail is in
addition to those already provided in CrPC.
Thus, it is necessary to advert to the
principles governing the grant of bail under
Section 439 of CrPC. Specifically, heed must
be paid to the stringent view taken by this
Court towards grant of bail with respect of
economic offences. In this regard, it is
pertinent
to
refer
to
the
following
observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v.
CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri)
552] : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "34.
Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be
viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat
to the financial health of the country. 35.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension
of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations." This Court has
adopted this position in several decisions,
including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of
Enforcement [Gautam Kundu v. Directorate
of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3
SCC (Cri) 603] and State of Bihar v. Amit
Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017)
13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] .
Thus, it is evident that the above factors must
be taken into account while determining
whether bail should be granted in cases
involving grave economic offences.

25. As already discussed supra, it is
apparent that the Special Court, while
considering the bail applications filed by
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Respondent 1 both prior and subsequent to
the filing of the investigation report and
complaint, has attempted to account not
only for the conditions laid down in Section
212(6) of the Companies Act, but also of
the general principles governing the grant
of bail.

26. In our considered opinion, the
High Court in the impugned order has
failed
to
apply
even
these
general
principles. The High Court, after referring
to certain portions of the complaint to
ascertain the alleged role of Respondent 1,
came to the conclusion that the role
attributed to him was merely that of
colluding with the co-accused promoters in
the commission of the offence in question.
The Court referred to the principles
governing the grant of bail as laid down by
this Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing
Sharma
v.
State
of
Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1057] , which discusses the
effect of the twin mandatory conditions
pertaining to the grant of bail for offences
under
the
Maharashtra
Control
of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 as laid down in
Section 21(4) thereof, similar to the
conditions embodied in Section 212(6)(ii)
of the Companies Act. However, the High
Court went on to grant bail to Respondent
1 by observing that bail was justified on the
"broad probabilities" of the case.

27. In our considered opinion, this
vague
observation
demonstrates
nonapplication of mind on the part of the Court
even under Section 439 CrPC, even if we
keep aside the question of satisfaction of
the mandatory requirements under Section
212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act."

36. Mere languishing in jail, during
trial, cannot be a ground for granting bail if
the conspiracy and fraud is of very high
magnitude. The Supreme Court in the case
of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit
Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (supra) in
paragraph-8 has held as under:-

"8. A bare reading of the order
impugned discloses that the High Court has
not given any reasoning while granting
bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court
granted bail more on the fact that the
accused is already in custody for a long
time. When the seriousness of the offence is
such the mere fact that he was in jail for
however long time should not be the
concern of the courts. We are not able to
appreciate such a casual approach while
granting bail in a case which has the effect
of undermining the trust of people in the
integrity of the education system in the
State of Bihar."

37. The Court has to take into
consideration while considering the bail
application, nature of offence and the Court
should refuse the bail if the offence is
serious
and
is
of
huge
magnitude,
particularly,
in
economic
offences.
Corruption is a menace which is eating the
vitals
of
economy
of
this
country.
Thousand of Crores of public money is
looted by corrupt people in the system.
Offence of the magnitude, as in the present
case could not have been committed
without involvement of the high-ups in the
Government. The accused-applicant was
enjoying the patronage and blessings of
high-ups in the Government, which is
evident from the forgery and fraud
committed by him while allocating the
work to ineligible persons, who allegedly
committed corruption in conspiracy with
others. The sentence provided under
Section 467 IPC is upto life and, therefore,
this Court is of the view that two years
imprisonment is not as such which itself
11 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. C.B.I.
725
would warrant this Court to grant bail to
the accused-applicant.

38. It is well settled that when the
gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere
period of incarceration or the fact that the
trial is not likely to be concluded in near
future cannot jointly entitle the accusedapplicant to be enlarged on bail. The
Supreme Court in the case reported in
(2007) 1 SCC 242 (Chenna Boyanna
Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another) in paragraph-16 has held as
under:-

"16. At this stage, it is neither
necessary nor desirable to weigh the
evidence meticulously to arrive at a
positive finding as to whether or not the
appellant has committed offences under
Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA.
What is to be seen is whether there is a
reasonable ground for believing that the
appellant is not guilty of the two offences,
he has been charged with, and further that
he is not likely to commit an offence under
MCOCA while on bail. As noted above, the
circumstance which has weighed with the
High Court to conclude that the appellant
had the knowledge of the organised crime
syndicate of Telgi, printing fake stamps,
etc.