Allahabad High Court
Mohan Prasad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18889 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohan Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhu Rai,Jitendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vibhu Rai, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Mohan Prasad seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0087 of 2023, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Kaptanganj District- Azamgarh during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 01.04.2023 a delayed F.I.R. dated 10.04.2023 was lodged by first informant- Santosh Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 0087 of 2023, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Kaptanganj, District-Azamgarh. In the aforesaid FIR, the applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that the first-informant is alleged to have been detained by applicant at the Police Station, the whole night and demanded Rs. 30,000/- for his release. The first informant was released after aforesaid demand was satisfied.
6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned Case crime number. Allegations made in the complaint are false and concocted. It is next contended that the applicant is a government servant and is working on the post of Sub-Inspector, consequently it cannot be doubted that the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act are not applicable. He further submits that the F.I.R. giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has been lodged by a private person. It is then urged that the acid test laid down for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act as explained by the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 is not satisfied against applicant up to this stage.
7. Moreover, there is a delay of 10 days in lodging the F.I.R. however, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of first informant is recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained. Once the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has not been explained the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained. He has referred to paragraph 8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403.
8. He further submits that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 10.04.2023 and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that the applicant is a named accused. There is nothing in the record to infer, malacious prosecution of the applicant. Parameters for granting bail in respect of economic offences or under the provisions of P.C. Act are far more stringent than parameters for granting bail for offences under common criminal law. Upto this stage, there is nothing to doubt the allegations made in the F.I.R. The conduct of the applicant is unbecoming of a responsible officer. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Moreover, the investigation is still going on and in case, applicant is released on bail, he shall hamper the investigation. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant at this stage.
10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that though applicant is working on the post of Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police, there being no recovery from applicant, the unexplained delay of 10 days in lodging of the F.I.R., up to this stage the acid test required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as explained by the Constitution Bench judgment as noted above, being not satisfied, but without making any comment on the merits of the case applicant has made out a case for bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant- Mohan Prasad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
Anurag/-
