Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52646
Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1319 of 2023
Applicant :- Pradeep Shukla
Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement ( Lko. Zonal Office )
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On 30.05.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the Directorate Of Enforcement this court had passed the following order:
"1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Purnendu Chakravarty and Amit Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed after rejection of his anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.05.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Court, PMLA Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.4230 of 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in Session/Complaint Case No.2790 of 2022, ECIR No./ECIR/09/PMLA/LKZO/2012, under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, registered at Police Station Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow.
3. The Directorate of Enforcement has filed a complaint against eight named accused persons, including the applicant, who was posted as Principal Secretary, Medical and Health at the relevant time alleging illegalities committed in procurement of RO systems under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme. It is alleged that supplies were procured at exorbitant rates, thereby causing a loss to the tune of Rs.6,03,21,135/- to the public exchequer. The allegation against the applicant is that one Manvendra Chaddha has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 Prevention of Money Laundering Act that one percent of the amount was paid 'for Principal Secretary and others'. The statement of the applicant was also recorded and the complaint states that the applicant had provided details of movable and immovable assets in his name and in the names of his family members, bank accounts, sources of income and copies of income tax returns. The applicant has denied having received any consideration against the allocation of works under National Rural Health Mission.
4. The complaint alleges that the applicant was the Mission Head of the National Rural Health Mission and he manipulated the tender process to benefit him and others and thus he indulged in generation, acquisition, possession, concealment and utilization of the proceeds of crime.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail in the predicate offence by means of order dated 12.02.2016, passed by Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Ghaziabad in Bail Application No.757 of 2016. He has further submitted that it is apparent from the narration made in the complaint itself that the applicant has throughout cooperated with the investigation and he has not been arrested during investigation. It has further been submitted that the
1
applicant suffers from various medical conditions and he has been granted bail in five cases on medical grounds, the details whereof have been mentioned in para 31 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that three of the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in the present case and the copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
6. Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the co-accused persons who have been granted bail were the suppliers whereas the applicant was the Principal Secretary and Mission Director of National Rural Health Mission and he is the main accused person behind the entire wrongful transactions.
7. The matter requires consideration.
8. Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two week thereafter.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that one of the co-accused persons has alleged that one percent of the amount was paid for the Principal Secretary and there is no allegation that any person had actually paid the money to the applicant and the applicant had received the money; that the complaint itself states that the applicant has provided the details of the properties and the bank accounts etc. belonging to him and his family members, which prima facie indicates the applicant's cooperation with the investigation; that the applicant has not been arrested during investigation; that he has been granted bail in the predicate offence and he has been granted bail in some other cases on the ground of his medical conditions, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted interim anticipatory bail.
10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant (Pradeep Shukla) before the learned Trial Court till the next date of listing in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bail bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/S.H.O on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:-
(i). that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer/ trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (ii). that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
11. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for vacation of this interim order.
12. List this case in the week commencing 17.07.2023. " Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Directorate Of Enforcement states that he has already filed counter affidavit in the
2
Registry of the Court but the same is scheduled to be placed before this Court on 09.08.2023. He has supplied a copy of the counter affidavit for perusal of the court.
The learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit today in the court, which is taken on record. He has also submitted that the bail bonds have also been furnished in compliance of the previous order. Co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail in the present case.
Learned counsel appearing for Enforcement Directorate did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. In view of above, the interim order dated 30.05.2023 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023 prateek
3