Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to Chief Engineer of UPSIDC

On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application filed by Chief Engineer Arun Kumar Misra of UP State Industrial Development Corporation who is accused of misappropriation of public money and was arrested on 26.10.2020.

It is alleged that Misra, who was chief engineer of UPSIDC, made a payment of one crore from the state fund for construction of the road, while no construction ever took place in reality.

While rejecting the bail application, Justice OM Prakash observed that it is evident that the applicant paid one crore from government exchequer for construction of a 5 km road whereas no work ever took place. After perusing the records and evidence of the case, it cannot be argued that prima facie a case has not been made as observed by the Bench.

The fact that Misra released 95 per cent of the payment without getting a NOC from the PWD department also goes against Misra.

Learned Counsel for the applicant had submitted that the applicant was not involved in the crime. The Counsel further submitted that the FIR in the instant case was lodged back in 2012 and the applicant was not named in it, but he was arrested after a gap of eight.

It was further submitted that the applicant had released the payment based on the report submitted by the concerned engineers. A third party also inspected the files; therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible. Earlier, the trial court rejected the bail application filed by the accused.

To secure bail for the applicant, Counsel stated that his client was falsely implicated in the case by his coworkers and because he tried to expose the Managing Director of the departmental. Therefore the applicant was arrested, but his co-accused were spared. The Counsel submitted that the applicant has a criminal history and would not influence the case if he was released on bail.

On the other hand, Counsel for the State opposed the bail plea and submitted that the applicant is accused of a severe offence and might try to influence the witness.

Counsel for the State further submitted that the reason why the applicant was not named in the FIR was that his name came during investigations and as he was the person responsible for making the payment he should have made sure that the contractor did the work, but instead he released the payment even without a NOC from PWD.

Lastly, the learned AGA submitted that a case had been made out against the applicant and other co-accused in the case have either been charge-sheeted or investigation are going on against them.

Hon’ble Court agreed with the AGA’s submissions and opined that the applicant should be released on bail.

Download Law Trend App

Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles