Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1666 (ALL)

Neelima Singh v. State of U. P. and Another

2013-06-24

HET SINGH YADAV

body2013
Het Singh Yadav, J.— The applicant, who alleged to have been involved in the Crime No. R.C. 2172011A0010 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and 13(2), 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station-CBI/ACU/VI, New Delhi, has moved this application to enlarge her on bail. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to the order passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3659(M/B)/2011 (PIL) CBI registered F.I.R. against Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, the then Chief Medical Officer and Dr. Y.S. Sachan, the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer (since deceased) Lucknow. It is further contended that as per prosecution version huge funds of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) alleged to have been mis-appropriated and embezzled by the above named persons including the other officers/officials of the Health Department, Lucknow Unit. The C.B.I. after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet against 18 accused persons including the applicant. Learned counsel further pointed out that the allegations against the applicant is that during her posting as District Health Education and Information Officer in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, she had signed 37 bills/vouchers for Rs. 7,50,545/- as second signatory raised by co-accused Ravindra Bahadur Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Om Raj Enterprises, Lucknow ignoring that vehicle number was not mentioned on the bills and the vehicle numbers reflected on the bills were relating to the private vehicles which cannot be plied as a commercial vehicle or ambulance. No log book was enclosed with so many bills or vehicle numbers reflected on the log books were fake. It is alleged that because of her deliberate negligence that the first signatory i.e. Drawing and Disbursement Officer, co-accused Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, the then CMO approved the fake bills and an amount of Rs. 7,50,545/- was wrongly paid to the service provider. It is alleged that the applicant in collusion with the service provider and other co-accused persons by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing her official position as a public servant allowed pecuniary advantage for her and private person and caused wrongful loss to the Government and unlawful gain to herself and co-accused Ravindra Bahadur Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Om Raj Enterprises. Learned counsel for the applicant stressed much that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The only role assigned to the applicant is that she has signed 37 bills/vouchers worth Rs. 7,50,545/- as second signatory, which were produced before her after verification and scrutiny by the Accountant in the office of CMO, Lucknow. The bills were duly verified and forwarded for payment by the Superintendents of the Hospitals and the In-charge doctors of CHC and PHC in the District. Thus, it is co-accused persons, who have hired the vehicles of the service provider and forwarded the bills for payment after due verification. The co-accused persons, who have submitted the bills and vouchers for payment and issued certificate regarding use of the vehicle have been granted bail by this Court subject to condition of payment of amount of bills forwarded by them. Learned counsel for the applicant vehementlly urged that the prosecution allegations, even if, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute offences as alleged. Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, the then CMO has also been granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, therefore, the applicant alleged to have signed 37 bills as second signatory which were presented before her after scrutiny by the Accountant as aforementioned, thus, apparently having no direct role deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for CBI strongly repudiates the submissions made as above and contended that the applicant has signed the bills in question allowing payment to the co-accused Ravindra Bahadur Singh of M/s. Om Raj Enterprises against the fake bills thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government by abusing his official position. However, it is not disputed by him that co-accused Dr. Chandrajeet Yadav having role at par with the applicant and other co-accused persons, who have been assigned grievous role have been granted bail by this Court and Lucknow Bench of this Court as well. But the bail was granted to them subject to payment of the amount of bill forwarded/approved by them. Learned counsel for the CBI further submitted that the applicant may be granted bail subject to condition of deposit of the amount of the bills signed by her as a second signatory. But the bail was granted to them subject to payment of the amount of bill forwarded/approved by them. Learned counsel for the CBI further submitted that the applicant may be granted bail subject to condition of deposit of the amount of the bills signed by her as a second signatory. Having given my thoughtful considerations to the points pertaining to the nature of accusation, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and severity of punishment raised as above by the learned counsel of both the sides and on perusal of record, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail for the following reasons: (a) The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. (b) She has signed 37 bills for Rs. 7,50,545/- as second signatory, submitted to the office of CMO by the Superintendents/Medical Officers of Hospital, PHC and CHC with their recommendations of payment. (c) The bills/vouchers so submitted to the office of CMO were placed before the applicant to sign as second signatory after their scrutiny by the Accountant of the office of CMO. (d) There is no prima facie evidence showing complicity of the applicant that she has signed those bills for any extraneous reasons and adopting corrupt practices. All the co-accused persons, who said to have grievous role have been granted bail by this Court. (e) The role of the applicant is at par with Dr. Chandrajeet Yadav, who alleged to have also signed bills as second signatory and in his bail order this Court imposed no conditions of deposit of the amount of the bills, which he signed as second signatory. Let applicant-Dr. Neelima Singh involved in the Crime No. R.C. 2172011A0010 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and 13(2), 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station-CBI/ACU/VI, New Delhi be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing in the case and will co-operate in the trial. In case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, she shall immediately give intimation to the court concerned through counsel and request be made to the trial court that she may be permitted to be present through counsel. (iii) She will not mis-use the liberty of the bail in any manner. Deviation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. The CBI court shall decide the case expeditiously uninfluenced by the observations made herein above. _____________