# Roop Singh Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1831 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-singh-yadav-v-directorate-of-enforcement-lucknow-48473
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 439- Bail- Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act)- Sections
3⁄4- The matter pertains to a large scam of
Rs. 1500 crores and it was an admitted
fact that the applicant was the then
Executive Engineer in the department and
it was his responsibility to deposit the said
"centage charges"- The applicant has
clearly misused the power entrusted to
him and he does not deserve any leniency.

Where the matter pertains to corruption
involving a huge amount by the accused who
misused his official position for embezzlement of
public money and money laundering, then no
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case for grant of bail is made out. ( Para 19, 23
)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

## Text

5 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
171

28. In view of the above, the present
application for bail is allowed.

29. Let the applicant-Vivek Verma, be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number 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:-

(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 fail 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.

(v) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of the
Court.

30. Before parting with, it is expected
that the trial shall be concluded with
expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Further, the learned trial court may take all
coercive measures as per law if either of
the parties do not co-operate in the trial
properly.
----------
(2022)05ILR A171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1831 of 2022

Roop Singh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G., Shiv P. Shukla

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 439- Bail- Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act)- Sections
3⁄4- The matter pertains to a large scam of
Rs. 1500 crores and it was an admitted
fact that the applicant was the then
Executive Engineer in the department and
it was his responsibility to deposit the said
"centage charges"- The applicant has
clearly misused the power entrusted to
him and he does not deserve any leniency.

Where the matter pertains to corruption
involving a huge amount by the accused who
misused his official position for embezzlement of
public money and money laundering, then no
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case for grant of bail is made out. ( Para 19, 23
)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

1. Tofan Singh Vs St. of T.N. (2021)4SCC1.

2. Nikesh Tara Chand Shah Vs U.O.I.(2018)11SCC 1

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

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the
Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow.

2. By means of the present
application, the applicant seeks bail in
Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2021, arising
out of ECIR/1/LKZO/2018, under Sections
3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (PML Act), Police Station-
Directorate
of
Enforcement,
District-
Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. An Enforcement Case Information
Report (ECIR) has been registered on the
basis of scheduled offence comprising of
First Information Report dated 19.6.2017
registered as Case Crime No.831 of 2017, u/s
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and
Sections 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the accused
persons.
Thereafter,
investigation
was
transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) and it was found that a huge amount
was embezzled in the project of Gomti River
Front.
The
State
Government
took
cognizance of this project and ordered
judicial enquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr.
(Retd.) Justice Alok Kumar Singh. After
conducting
a
thorough
enquiry,
a
comprehensive report was submitted to the
State Government on 16.5.2017 and on that
basis, the FIR was lodged against the erring
officials of the concerned department for
further proceedings.

4. CBI registered the case as Case
Crime No.RC0062017A0026 on 30.11.2017
for further investigation of Gomti River
Channelization Project and Gomti River
Front Development. After investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed by the CBI on
15/16.02.2021, u/s 120-B read with 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of PC Act against the applicant and
other co-accused persons.

5. On the basis of predicate offence
investigated by the CBI, the Directorate of
Enforcement investigated the matter u/s 3/4
of PML Act and vide Provisional Attachment
Order No.04/2019 dated 29.6.2019, the
property of the applicant's wife Shyama Devi
worth Rs.30 lakhs was attached. The Special
Court took cognizance of the complaint filed
by the Directorate of Enforcement on
15.7.2021 u/s 3/4 of PML Act.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that
as per the complaint, an amount of
Rs.98.89 lakhs is alleged to have been
acquired by the accused persons as
proceeds of crime. The allegation levelled
against
the
applicant
pertains
to
embezzlement of Rs.30 lakhs in respect of
taking possession and acquisition of
property as proceeds of crime. The alleged
property was purchased in the name of
applicant's wife on 10.9.2013 and the same
has
wrongly
been
attached
by
the
Directorate of Enforcement as the date of
purchase of the alleged property is almost
5 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
173
three years prior to the date of allegation
i.e. during June, 2016. The Directorate of
Enforcement has acted mechanically and
has failed to extract the money trail and
have wrongly attached the said property.
There is no reason or explanation provided
by the department which depicts that the
attached property reflects the proceeds of
crime and is involved in the act of money
laundering.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the Directorate of
Enforcement has not undertaken any
independent
investigation
and
their
complaint is in verbatim to the narration of
the FIR lodged by the CBI. The applicant
has also denied of having received any
illegal amount from one Amit Yadav,
Proprietor of M/s. Crossland Engineering
and Infra Developers Private Limited. He
was not responsible for the allotment of
contract to the said company and the
alleged contracts were executed on the
directions of Chief Engineer as he could
not pass the tenders for an amount of Rs.1
crore or more.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further stated that the applicant has
cooperated in the investigation and his
statement u/s 50 of PML Act has been
recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement
on
31.5.2018,
24.8.2018,
28.8.2018,
25.6.2019, 26.6.2019 and 26.8.2020. The
statement of Amit Yadav has been recorded
by
Directorate
of
Enforcement
on
29.1.2019 and 5.2.2019 after recording the
fourth statement of the applicant i.e. on
25.6.2019. The applicant has never been
confronted with the statements given by
Amit Yadav on 25.6.2019, 26.6.2019 &
26.8.2019. He has further submitted that
the maximum sentence provided to the
offence referred in the charge-sheet is
seven years and the applicant is in jail since
22.9.2021. The trial has not proceeded any
further. No offence u/s 3/4 of PML Act is
made out against him.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further referred relied upon the
judgement of Supreme Court in the case of
Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu1
wherein it has been held that officers, who
are invested with powers u/s 53 of NDPS
Act, are "police officers" within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act
and, therefore, any confessional statement
made before them would attract the bar of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot
be taken into account to convict an
accused.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further stated that the investigative
procedure especially in the Statute of PML
Act is pari materia to that under NDPS Act.
He has further relied upon the judgement of
Supreme Court in the case of Nikesh Tara
Chand Shah Vs. Union of India2 and the
relevant para of the said judgement is
reproduced hereunder:-

"Regard being had to the above,
we declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as
it imposes two further conditions for
release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it
violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India."

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also stated that the bail of the present
case falls in the category of less than one
crore and there is a provision introduced in
Section 45(ii) of PML Act inserted vide Act
No.13 of 2018 by way of amendment dated
19.4.2018 to release the person on bail if
the case falls within one crore.
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. The 'Authority' or 'Court' word
used in Section 24(a) or (b) would mean
and only mean the Authority constituted
under the Act and Courts. Otherwise,
expression would defeat the object of
Section 24 of PML Act. The investigation
conducted by the CBI, ED or any other
police agency would not fall within the
category of proceedings. He has further
stated that the applicant was not arrested
during investigation and has retired on
31.12.2016. The complaint was filed on
2.12.2020 before the Special Judge, PMLA,
Lucknow. The sole allegation against the
applicant is that one Amit Yadav had
withdrawn an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs vide
two cheques dated 5.9.2016 and 9.6.2016
which were handed over to applicant in
cash. The applicant has no criminal history.
He is in jail since 20.11.2020 in predicate
case and since 22.9.2021 in this case. There
is no likelihood of early disposal of the
trial. The applicant undertakes that if he is
released on bail, he will never misuse the
liberty and will cooperate in trial.

13. Per contra, Sri Shiv P. Shukla,
learned counsel for the Directorate of
Enforcement has vehemently opposed the
bail prayer of the applicant by contending
that rigors of Section 45 of PML Act are
applicable to the present case. As per
Section 24, the burden of proof lies upon
the accused pertaining to the alleged
amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. The total scam is
of Rs.1500 crores. He has further relied
upon the report dated 16.5.2017 prepared
by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Alok Kumar
Singh after conducting a thorough inquiry
in the matter in which it has come on
record that there was illegal money
gratification
paid
to
certain
accused
engineers in cash and through banking
transactions which were nothing but the
properties involved in money laundering.

14. Sri Shukla has further stated that
as per the Rules, an amount of "centage
charge" was to be deposited in the
appropriate account head of the concerned
department through Treasury Challan or
through electronic payment. In the instant
project, centage charge to the tune of Rs. 71
crores was not deposited for the period of
March, 2015 to December, 2015. During
this period, the applicant was the Executive
Engineer of the concerned department and
on
being
questioned
referring
the
deposition of the said centage charge, he
could
not
provide
any
documentary
evidence of having deposited it.

15. On this count, learned counsel for
the applicant has stated that a request was
moved by the department for the waiver of
said centage charge and, therefore, centage
charges were not deposited.

16. Sri Shukla has also referred to the
statement of one Siddh Narain Sharma,
who has stated that it was the sole
responsibility of the Executive Engineer to
deposit the "centage charges" and he has
also stated that he was not aware as to
whether the said "centage charges" were
deposited or not. Learned counsel has
further stated that the applicant while
working as Executive Engineer in the
Gomti River Front, did not follow the
financial rules whereas the amount due for
centage charges were used elsewhere
without any approval of the authority. Thus,
the applicant did not discharge his official
responsibility
but
indulged
in
misappropriation and diversion of funds
without any approval. Learned counsel has
lastly submitted that the applicant is not on
bail in the predicate offence.

17. It is also stated that the applicant
did not pay due diligence in the
5 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
175
construction on RCC Diaphragm Wall
and misused his official position. The
applicant is stated to have signed an
agreement for work of "Intercepting
Drain" without any financial sanction.
The applicant is stated to have used the
financial details and profile of his wife
Shyama Devi to channelize, place, layer
and project i.e. launder the illegitimate
properties involved in money laundering
derived and obtained by him through
illegal monetary gratifications in Gomti
River Front Project.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
has
further
stated
that
investigation is still going on and as per
the current stage, the liability of applicant
is Rs. 30 lakhs, that of the co-accused
Anil Yadav is Rs. 53.89 lakhs and that of
S.N. Sharma is of Rs. 15 lakhs only.

CONCLUSION

19. The matter pertains to a large
scam of Rs. 1500 crores and it was an
admitted fact that the applicant was the
then
Executive
Engineer
in
the
department and it was his responsibility
to deposit the said "centage charges".

20. Corruption is a form of
dishonesty which is undertaken by a
person or persons or organization, which
is entrusted with a position of authority,
in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse
of power for one's personal gain.

21. Of late, we have seen a steep
surge in the said means of corruption by
those who are in power. Power which
may be muscular, administrative or
monetary if misused has deletarious
effect on others i.e. society as a whole.

22. Lala Hardayal in his book "Hints
for Self Culture" has stated as under:-

"Take heed lest you grasp the
shadow and miss the substance. You may
coin your Brain into money, but then you
are abusing and misusing this rare gift of
Nature. Intellect should be employed
chiefly as an instrument of growth and
social service. It must not be a tool for
exploiting your fellow-citizens......"

23. The applicant has clearly
misused the power entrusted to him and
he does not deserve any leniency.

24. 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.

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

26. 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.

27.

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.
----------
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4109 of 2021

Akhilesh Kumar @ A.K. Rajiv ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ram Chandra Singh, Arun Sinha, Atul
Mishra, Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Siddhartha
Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Romit Seth, Varsha Sharma

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 439- Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 406, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B IPC & Prevention of
Corruption Act- Section 7ka/8(1)(1) - The
Informant is said to have been defrauded
to the tune of Rs.9,72,12,000/- It primafacie 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 through his
mobile.

Where the offence is a serious fraud involving
high profile criminals and there is prima-facie
evidence against the accused then no case for
bail is made out under such facts and
circumstances. ( Para 15)
Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

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

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha and Sri
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsels
for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar
Shahi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the present bail
application, the applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.160 of 2020, under Sections 406,
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC &
Section 7ka/8(1)(1) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station- Hazratganj,
District- Lucknow, during the pendency of
trial.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per prosecution story, two
persons, namely, Vaibhav Shukla and his
friend Santosh Sharma are said to have met
the Informant, Manjeet Singh Bhatia @
Rinku at his residence at Indore, Madhya
Pradesh in the month of April, 2018. They
are stated to have enquired from Informant
whether he has flour mill and also about
annual turnover of his business. Vaibhav
Shukla belonged to a very respectable
family and is a closed friend of the
Informant. The said two persons, Vaibhav
Shukla and Santosh Sharma are said to
have taken documents of Informant's
company pertaining to previous financial
years and also the profile of Informant's
company. They again visited the office of
Informant and informed him that one S.K.
Mittal who is stated to be the Deputy
Director
of
Department
of
Animal
Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh, had met them
and he is very close to the Minister and
they want to get him a supply order for