Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Roop Singh Yadav - Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Opposite Party
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 6700 Of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Corruption - Bail Application under Section 439 of CrPC - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) PC Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the bail application under Section 439 of CrPC in a case involving Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) PC Act. The judgment highlighted the nature of the offences, the accused's involvement in corruption, forgery, and fraud, and the magnitude of the economic offences.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a bail application under Section 439 of CrPC in a corruption case related to the Gomti River Channelization Project and Gomti River Front Development. The accused-applicant, Roop Singh Yadav, was alleged to be involved in corruption, irregularities, fraud, and criminal intent in the implementation of the projects. The court considered the accused's involvement in huge corruption, forgery, fraud, and misusing his official position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-applicant was involved in corruption, forgery, and fraud in the implementation of the projects, leading to a huge loss to the State Exchequer. The court also noted the accused's involvement in a cartel formation and the awarding of contracts to ineligible parties. The court emphasized the severity and magnitude of the economic offences and the accused's role as one of the main architects in looting public money.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the accused's involvement in corruption, forgery, and fraud, the severity and magnitude of the economic offences, and the accused's misuse of his official position to favor ineligible parties in the awarding of contracts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the accusations, the magnitude and gravity of the offences, and the accused's involvement in economic offences of huge magnitude. The court also considered the principles governing the grant of bail in cases involving grave economic offences and the need for a different approach in such matters.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application, considering the accused's involvement in corruption, forgery, and fraud, and the severity and magnitude of the economic offences. The court emphasized that mere long incarceration during trial cannot be a ground for granting bail in cases of severe economic offences.
JUDGMENT :
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, Anti-Corruption, CBI (West), Lucknow has rejected the bail application of the accused-applicant 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.
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. Alarge 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, durin
The judgment established the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences, the need to protect the financial health of the ....
Bail in economic offences should be denied to protect the larger public and state interest and prevent tampering with witnesses.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated position regarding ill effects of Socio Economic Offences and has also laid down that length of tenure in custody may not be only factor of conside....
Point of Law : Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
