IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
Aman Kumar Singh, S/o. Late Shri Yadu Nath Singh - Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police - Respondent
M.Cr.C.(A) No. 328 of 2023 and M.Cr.C. (A) No. 329 Of 2023
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(b) and (2) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 438 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120B - Offence of conspiracy - Grant of anticipatory bail - Held, no previous criminal antecedents of the applicants, which is also a relevant factor in refusing or granting the anticipatory bail - Period must be to enable a true and comprehensive picture of known sources of income and pecuniary resources and property in possession of public servant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf which are alleged to be so disproportionate - In case a ten year period cannot be said to be incapable of yielding true and comprehensive picture - Assets spilling over from anterior period if their existence is probabilised would of course have to be given credit to on income side and would go to reduce extent and quantum of disproportion - Petition Disposal of
ORDER :
Heard.
1. Both these applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are being heard together and decided by this common order.
2. The instant bail applications have been filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 9 of 2020 registered at Police Station – Economic Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, complainant – Uchit Sharma lodged a complaint on 11.10.2019 in the Office of the Chief Minister of the State alleging that applicant – Aman Kumar Singh (in MCRCA No.328 of 2023), An Indian Revenue Service (IRS) Officer and the Former Principal Secretary to the erstwhile Chief Minister of the Chhattisgarh, his wife applicant – Yasmin Singh (in MCRCA No.329 of 2023), Former Consultant to the Government of Chhattisgarh, who had worked on contract basis as the Director, Communication and Capacity Development Unit (CCDU), Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Chhattisgarh from 14.11.2005 to 31.03.2015 and thereafter, as the Director of ICE and Capacity Building, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh from 01.04.2015 to 10.12.2018 and his family were involved in corruption and money laundering. It is also alleged that the assets held by applicant – Aman Kumar Singh and Yasmin Singh are disproportionate to their known sources of income. After receiving such complaint, the Chief Minister directed the Chief Secretary of the State to have the complaint enquired into by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Vide letter dated 21.10.2019, the complaint was forwarded by General Administration Department of the State (for short ‘GAD’) to the Economic Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘EOW/ACB’) to conduct an enquiry, consequently, a preliminary enquiry bearing No. P.E. 35/2019 was registered.
4. The applicant – Yasmin Singh had filed W.P.(S) No. 6521 of 2019 questioning the departmental enquiry initiated against her and to set aside the order dated 10.05.2019, whereby the GAD had instituted an enquiry, which was initiated on the basis of the complaint dated 12.04.2019 lodged by one Vikas Tiwari (spokesperson of the Chhattisgarh unit of the Indian National Congress party). In the writ petition, an application for interim relief was also filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2020, where this Court directed the State not to take any steps to her prejudice pursuant to letter dated 21.10.2019. A letter dated 21.10.2019 issued by GAD, was also challenged by the applicant – Aman Kumar Singh by filing W.P.(Cr.) No. 88 of 2020 where he prayed for production of entire records pertaining to letter dated 21.10.2019 and for quashing of the said letter however, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, an FIR was registered against both the applicants on 28.02.2020. Applicant – Aman Kumar Singh applied for amendment in W.P.(Cr.) No. 88 of 2020 seeking therein challenge to the FIR registered against him along with an application for interim relief for staying the effect/operation of the FIR.
5. Interim application moved by applicant – Aman Kumar Singh in W.P.(Cr.) No. 88 of 2020 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.2.2020 wherein it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against him till the next date of hearing. Applicant – Yasmin Singh also filed W.P. (Cr.) No.154 of 2020 for quashing of FIR.
6. After hearing both the parties, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 allowed the petitions preferred by the applicants and quashed the FIR No. 9 of 2020 registered against both the applicants. The order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 88 of 2020 and W.P.(Cr.) No. 154 of 2020 along with other orders were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No. 1703-1705 of 2022
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
State of A.P. vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Another
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Nittin Johari and Another
Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P.
Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during in....
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings, allowing for bail grants based on case-specific circumstances.
Article 21 of Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.