Tuesday, January 26, 2021


Allahabad HC denies bail to tainted UPSIDC engineer

IANS | January 07, 2021 03:16 PM

PRAYAGRAJ(Uttar Pradesh): The Allahabad high court has rejected the bail application of chief engineer (CE) of the State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC), Arun Kumar Mishra, who is accused of misappropriation of public money.

Mishra was arrested on October 26, 2020 and it is alleged that he made a payment of more than Rs one crore from the government exchequer for construction of a road, whereas actually no work was done.

Rejecting the bail application, Justice Om Prakash-VII observed, "It is evident from the record that the payment was made by the applicant from the government exchequer (public money) regarding the construction of road, whereas actually no work was done."

The court further stated that "In the circumstances, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail."

Earlier, the counsel for the applicant submitted before the court that the applicant has not committed the present offence.

He further submitted that in this matter FIR was lodged in the year 2012 and the applicant was not named in the FIR. After a gap of about eight years, he was arrested in the matter on October 26, 2020.

It was further submitted that the allegation against the applicant is that without proper sanction he, being the executive engineer, has released more than Rs one crore without obtaining a no objection certificate from the PWD concerned and ensuring that as to whether the road in question was actually constructed or not.

Referring to aforesaid allegations, he contended that the payment was said to have been made for the construction of the road on the basis of a report submitted by the engineers. A third-party inspection was also made. Hence, in this matter the applicant is not responsible in any manner.

The trial court has rejected the bail application of the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence.

It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case with malicious intention of the employees/officers of the department concerned. No departmental action has been taken against the applicant.

His counsel said the applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since October 26, 2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

On the other hand, additional advocate general, Krishna Pahal, who appeared for the state government, opposed the request for bail submitted that in fact in this matter money was released in respect of construction of the road that was not constructed.

It is also submitted that though the applicant is not named in the FIR yet during investigation his involvement surfaced in the matter. Since payment was made against construction of road but no road was actually constructed and applicant being the executive engineer (responsible for payment) has made the payment. All the offences levelled against the applicant are clearly evident.

Prior to payment, the applicant did not obtain a no-objection certificate from the PWD whereas there was stipulation in the work order itself. This fact also shows the involvement of the applicant in the present matter.

Have something to say? Post your comment