# Yogendra Nath Pandey v. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12073 of 2021
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-nath-pandey-v-c-b-i-anti-corruption-branch-lko-opp-party-47724
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-Assistant Manager of DIC, Chandauli-
-coal linkage was granted to Jai Durga
Industries, Chandauli -the officials in connivance
with the industry-coal supplied to it by the Coal
India Limited at notified price-company sold it in
open market-black marketing-chargesheet filed
on 31.05.2012- Applicant not misused the
liberty granted-entitled to be released on
Anticipatory Bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(viii) that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

(ix) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

17. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 340
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
12073 of 2021

Yogendra Nath Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
K. Saran, Amit Kumar Kaushal, Himanshu
Suryavanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-Assistant Manager of DIC, Chandauli-
-coal linkage was granted to Jai Durga
Industries, Chandauli -the officials in connivance
with the industry-coal supplied to it by the Coal
India Limited at notified price-company sold it in
open market-black marketing-chargesheet filed
on 31.05.2012- Applicant not misused the
liberty granted-entitled to be released on
Anticipatory Bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. M/s Ashoka Smokeless Vs U.O.I., (2007) 2
SCC 640

2. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

3. Siddharth Vs St. of U. Pr.& anr., (2021) SCC
Online SC 615

4. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) , 2020
SCC Online SC 98

5. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 922

6. Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021
passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021,
Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr. dated 16.12.2021

7. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

8. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
(1978) 1 SCC 240
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi
and Sri Amit Kumar Kaushal, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the
applicant as well as Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the Central
Bureau of Investigation assisted by Sri
Akhilendra Singh, Advocate and also
perused the material available on record.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant
in
Case
Crime
No.
R.C.0062011A0006, under Sections 120-B,
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- CBI,
ACB, District- Lucknow, with a prayer to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
10 All. Yogendra Nath Pandey Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
341

3. A coal linkage was granted to M/s
Jai Durga Industries, Chandauli in the year
1987. A new coal distribution policy was
introduced on 18.10.2007 by the Ministry
of Coal, envisaging a new mechanism of
coal distribution by way of entering into the
Fuel Supply Agreement in compliance with
the directions of the Supreme Court in M/s
Ashoka Smokeless Vs. Union of India and
in connected matters1. As per new policy,
the prices were to be fixed by Coal India
Limited. Pursuant to the said newly devised
system, a Fuel Supply Agreement was
entered into between the M/s Jai Durga
Industries and the Coal Company.

4. During the course of investigation,
it has been found that the coal supplies
have been made to M/s. Jai Durga
Industries after taking certificate of the
operational status from the State Industries
Department i.e. District Industries Centre
(DIC). After allotment of coal by the
concerned
coal
companies,
the
coal
companies used to write to the units
directly for verification and send the copy
of the letter to the DICs and the Directorate
of Industries. Upon receipt of such letters
from the coal companies, the DICs used to
verify and send their report directly to the
concerned coal companies.

5. It has been alleged that in
connivance of unknown officers/officials of
DIC, Chandauli and Northern Coal Fields
Limited (NCL), Ms. Jai Durga Industries,
Chandauli had lifted coal from NCL at an
average price of Rs.1700/- per MT during
the period of 2010-11 of which the average
market price of same grade coal was
Rs.4200/- per MT. It has further been
alleged that the coal supplied was at the
notified price fixed by the Coal India
Limited to streamline the rates across the
country.

6. As per the charge-sheet submitted
by the CBI on 31.05.2012, the co-accused
Ramji Singh, the then General Manager of
DIC Chandauli and the applicant, who was
the Assistant Manager therein, are alleged
to have indulged in criminal conspiracy and
abused their official position in connivance
with Ratan Singh, by issuing forged
certificates regarding the existence of unit
and its operational status on the basis of
which the supplies of coal were made to the
alleged companies.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

7. Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi and Sri
Amit Kumar Kaushal, learned counsels
appearing for the applicant have stated that
the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant is just a scapegoat and he was not
involved in any illegal activities as alleged
against him by the prosecution. The matter
is purely civil in nature and the applicant is
being harassed by the agency by adding
criminal colour to it, thus, no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant
in
custody.
There
is
no
apprehension of the applicant fleeing away
from the justice or tampering with any
evidence which is in the possession of
C.B.I. and E.D.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has
also submitted that the applicant is a old
aged person and he has had a Cardiac
Bypass Surgery on 14.07.2010 and his wife
is also suffering from fatal disease of
kidney failure. He has further submitted
that the charge-sheet has already been filed
in the matter way back on 31.05.2012 and
the applicant has not misused or abused the
interim protection granted to him by
various courts since then. Much reliance
has been placed on the fact that in the
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charge-sheet
filed
by
the
CBI,
no
prosecution has been initiated against any
of the erring officials of the NCL. The coaccused Ratan Singh, who is the Director
of the alleged erring Company, had
preferred a Writ Petition bearing No.6314
of 2020 before the High Court of Delhi
wherein the High Court directed that his
attached property shall be released subject
to depositing of Rs.70,25,716.40/- which
was the alleged proceeds of the Agreement.
Learned counsel has next submitted that the
co-accused Ratan Singh had already
deposited the said amount before the
Registrar General of Delhi High Court in
compliance of the order dated 15.10.2020
passed in OC No.1263 of 2020. Learned
counsel has next submitted that as the
present subject matter pertains to the
amount of Rs.70,25,716.40/- which has
already been deposited by the co-accused
Ratan Singh, no cause of action remains in
the subject matter. It has further been
submitted that there is no criminal history
of the applicant except two cases instituted
by the CBI at a time pertaining to the
alleged two coal companies, namely, M/s
Jai Durga Industries and M/s Drolia Coke
Industries Private Limited. It was directed
by the High Court to expedite the trial of
the case but the same has proceeded in a
snail's pace. It has further been argued that
no complaint whatsoever has been lodged
by the NCL or the Coal India Limited. The
provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are
attracted to the present case. Learned
counsel for the applicant has further
undertaken that there is no possibility of the
applicant fleeing away from the judicial
proceedings and in the light of the
judgement of the Apex Court in Bhadresh
Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat2 and
Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another3, the applicant may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the CBI assisted
by Sri Akhilendra Singh, Advocate has
vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail
application on the ground that the coaccused Ratan Singh, who is the Director
of the alleged Company, with the help of
the applicant, who was the Assistant
Manager of the DIC, Chandauli, were
indulged in diverting the coal at the
controlled rate to the black market and
extricated undue gain.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also relied upon the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4,
wherein it has been held in paras-63, 69
and 75 which read as under:-

"63.
Clearly,
therefore,
where
Parliament wished to exclude or restrict the
power of courts, under Section 438 of the
Code, it did so in categorical terms.
Parliament's omission to restrict the right
of citizens, accused of other offences from
the
right
to
seek
anticipatory
bail,
necessarily leads one to assume that
neither a blanket restriction can be read
into by this court, nor can inflexible
guidelines in the exercise of discretion, be
insisted upon- that would amount to
judicial legislation.

*****

69. It is important to notice here that
there is nothing in the provisions of Section
438
which
suggests
that
Parliament
intended to restrict its operation, either as
regards the time period, or in terms of the
nature of the offences in respect of which,
an applicant had to be denied bail, or
which special considerations were to apply.
In this context, it is relevant to recollect
that the court would avoid imposing
restrictions or conditions in a provision in
10 All. Yogendra Nath Pandey Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
343
the absence of an apparent or manifest
absurdity, flowing from the plain and literal
interpretation of the statute (Ref. Chandra
Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh). In RBI v.
Peerless General Finance and Investment
Co. Ltd., the relevance of text and context
was emphasized in the following terms:

"33. Interpretation must depend on the
text and the context. They are the bases of
interpretation. One may well say if the text
is the texture, context is what gives the
colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are
important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual. A statute is best interpreted
when we know why it was enacted. With
this knowledge, the statute must be read,
first as a whole and then section by section,
clause by clause, phrase by phrase and
word by word. If a statute is looked at, in
the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute-maker, provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections,
clauses, phrases and words may take
colour and appear different than when the
statute is looked at without the glasses
provided by the context. With these glasses
we must look at the Act as a whole and
discover what each section, each clause,
each phrase and each word is meant and
designed to say as to fit into the scheme of
the entire Act. No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in
isolation. Statutes have to be construed so
that every word has a place and everything
is in its place."

****

75. For the above reasons, the answer
to the first question in the reference made
to this bench is that there is no offence, per
se, which stands excluded from the purview
of Section 438, except the offences
mentioned in Section 438(4). In other
words, anticipatory bail can be granted,
having regard to all the circumstances, in
respect of all offences. At the same time, if
there are indications in any special law or
statute, which exclude relief under Section
438(1) they would have to be duly
considered. Also, whether anticipatory
offences should be granted, in the given
facts and circumstances of any case, where
the allegations relating to the commission
of offences of a serious nature, with certain
special conditions, is a matter of discretion
to be exercised, having regard to the nature
of the offences, the facts shown, the
background of the applicant, the likelihood
of his fleeing justice (or not fleeing justice);
likelihood of co-operation or non-cooperation with the investigating agency or
police, etc. There can be no inflexible time
frame for which an order of anticipatory
bail can continue.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance on para-91.1 of
Sushila Aggarwal (Supra) which reads as
under:-

91.1. Regarding Question No. 1, this
court holds that the protection granted to a
person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not
invariably be limited to a fixed period; it
should enure in favour of the accused
without any restriction on time. Normal
conditions under Section 437(3) read with
Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there
are specific facts or features in regard to
any offence, it is open for the court to
impose
any
appropriate
condition
(including fixed nature of relief, or its being
tied to an event) etc."

12. On the other hand, Sri Anurag
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI
has further placed reliance upon the
judgement of Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another5 and has
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that according to the said judgement,
the case of the applicant falls in the
Category- B and D, hence, the provisions
of Section 438 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the
present case but he could not dispute the
fact that the amount in question has already
been deposited by the applicant.

13. Learned counsel on behalf of the
applicant has placed much reliance on the
order passed by the Apex Court in
Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of
2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5191
of 2021, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another dated
16.12.2021, wherein it has been clarified by
the Apex Court as under:-

"We are also putting a caution that
merely by categorizing certain offences as
economic offences which may be noncognizable, it does not mean that a different
meaning is to be given to our order."

14. As per the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh
Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat6,
it has held that the nature and gravity of
the accusation and the exact role of the
accused
must
be
properly
comprehended, the previous criminal
antecedents of the applicant whether he
has previously undergone imprisonment
on
conviction,
the
possibility
of
applicant
to
flee
and
where
the
accusation has been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him, are the
circumstances that are to be taken into
account as per Section 438 Cr.P.C.

15.
It
was
observed
by
V.R.
Krishnaiyer, J. in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh7 that:

"1. ....... The issue of (Bail) is one of
liberty, justice, public safety and burden of
the public treasury, all of which insist that
a developed jurisprudence of bail is
integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process.

.... After all, personal liberty of an
accused
or
convict
is
fundamental,
suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of
'procedure established by law'. The last
four words of Article 21 are the life of that
human right."

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and upon hearing
the learned counsel for the parties and also
perusing all the
judgements
referred
hereinabove, this Court is of the view that
since the charge-sheet was filed on
31.05.2012 and the applicant has not
misused the liberty granted to him vide
various orders, he is entitled to be enlarged
on anticipatory bail.

17. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest,
let the accused-applicant Yogendra Nath
Pandey, be released forthwith in Case
Crime No. R.C.0062011A0006, under
Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police
Station- CBI, ACB, District- Lucknow, on
bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of
the police station concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat
10 All. Ramji Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
345
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;

(iii) that the applicant shall surrender
his passport, if any, to the concerned trial
Court forthwith. His passport will remain in
custody of the concerned trial Court;

(iv) that the applicant shall not leave
India during the pendency of trial without
prior permission from the concerned trial
Court;

(v) that in default of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

(vi) that it is directed that the trial may
be concluded in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably, within a period of
one year from the date of this order,
independently without being prejudiced by
any observations made by this court while
considering
or
deciding
the
present
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant;

(vii) that in case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

(viii) that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

(ix) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

18. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 345
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
12682 of 2021

Ramji Singh ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek
Tiwari,
Purnendu
Chakravarty,
Shashank Shekhar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-General Manager of DIC, Chandauli- -
coal
linkage
was
granted
to
Jai
Durga
Industries, Chandauli -the officials in connivance
with the industry-coal supplied to it by the Coal
India Limited at notified price-company sold it
in open market-black marketing-chargesheet
filed on 31.05.2012- Applicant not misused the
liberty granted-entitled to be released on
Anticipatory Bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Ashoka Smokeless Vs U.O.I. and in
connected matters, (2007) 2 SCC 640

2. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

3. Siddharth Vs St. of U. P. & anr., (2021) SCC
Online SC 615

4. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC Online SC 98

5. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 922

6. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152