Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 25116 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125278
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13366 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tyagi,Narendra Kumar,Pranshu Gupta,Shobhit Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akash Tyagi, 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-Manoj Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Anti Corruption Meerut, District-ACO, UP during the pendency of trial.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 18.01.2024, a prompt FIR dated 18.01.2024 was lodged by first informant-Inspector Basant Singh Adhikari (Trap Team Incharge) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0024 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Meeut. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely - (1) Manoj Kumar (Current Supervisor/Samprati Supervisor), Department of Social Welfare and (2) Ranjeet Singh (Permanent Supervisor/Samprati Anuchar) have been nominated as named accused.

5. Subsequently aforementioned FIR was transferred to Anti Corruption Cell and was re-registered as Case Crime No. 0001 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Anti Corruption Meerut, District-ACO, UP

6. The prosecution story as is discernible from the FIR is to the effect that an FIR dated 03.02.2023 was lodged by Sandeep Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 0023 of 2023, under Sections 147, 324, 323 IPC, Police Station-Hastinapur, District-Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR, Five persons namely (1) Arun, (2) Rinku, (3) Sumit, (4) Vineet and (5) Ansar Rajput have been nominated as named accused.

7. Immediately, after aforesaid FIR was lodged, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the first informant Sandeep Kumar in view of the benevolent scheme launched by the Government. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, which was done by a police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted. In view of above, on 15.01.2024, the second installment of Rs. 2,75,000/- was paid to the first informant (the victim Sandeep Kumar). Co-accused Ranjeet Kumar, who is working on the post of Permanent Supervisor/Samprati Anuchar, made demand of Rs. 75,000/- from the first informant of aforementioned FIR namely Sandeep Kumar though his mobile number 7302676189 on the mobile phone of Sandeep Kumar i.e. 8532893122. The said demand was also accompanied by exhortation to the effect that in case, the demand is not fulfilled, the third installment shall not be released in favour of aforementioned first informant/victim. On account of above, the complainant Sandeep Kumar made a complaint regarding above. Accordingly, a police trap was laid on 18.01.2024 and applicant Manoj Kumar was caught red handed with cash worth Rs. 75,000/- (bribe money), which is in the denominatioon of Rs. 5,00/- currency notes. The result of chemical test so conducted qua the recovery made from the person of applicant is also against applicant.

8. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, particularly the C.D.R. report of the mobile phone of applicant, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence alleged against applicant is fully established. He, accordingly, submitted police report dated 16.03.2024 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas, the investigation in respect of co-accused is pending.

9. Mr. Vinay Saran, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akash Tyagi, the learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, recovery of Rs. 75,000/- cash (bribe money) has been made from the person of applicant and the result of chemical test so conducted qua the recovery made from the person of applicant is also against applicant yet applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

10. In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. According to the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, the complainant has alleged that the demand was made by the applicant on the ground that in case, if the demand so made is not fulfilled, the third installment shall not be released. According to the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, the third installment is payable only upon the conclusion of trial, which admittedly, has not yet conducted in respect of the offence pertaining to Case Crime NO. 23 of 2023. He, therefore, contends that since there is no basis for the demand alleged to have been made by the applicant, therefore, the recovery of Rs. 75,000/- (cash) from the person of applicant is of no consequence as mere recovery of money from the person of an accused does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. To lend legal support of his submission, he has referred to the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724.

11. Even otherwise, 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 19.01.2024. As such, he is about to complete 7 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Furthermore, applicant is a government servant and in case, he is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that applicant shall flee away from the trial. On the above premise, the learned senior counsel thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, recovery of Rs. 75,000/- (cash) has been made from the person of applicant, the result of chemical test so conducted qua the recovery made from the person of applicant is also against applicant, as such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the FIR and on basis thereof, he submits that the demand was subsequently, raised from the mobile phone of co-accused Ranjeet Kumar on the mobile phone of complainant. The said fact also stands coroborated from the CDR report of applicant. The demand was made for/from the amount already paid to the complainant. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the submission urged by the learned senior counsel to the effect that since the third installment was payable only after the conclusion of trial and that eventuality have not yet occurred, therefore, there is no basis for the demand alleged to have made by applicant is wholly misconceived. Learned A.G.A. further submits that considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the amount of money recovered from the person of applicant, no interference is warranted by this Court in favour of present application for bail. Offence complained of against applicant and co-accused is not only illegal but also immoral. Learned A.G.A. thus concludes that no good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

13. When confronted with above, the learned senior counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

14. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application for bail, the amount of money recovered from the person of applicant, the status of applicant as well as the nature and gravity of offence, this Court, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel in support of this application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

15. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

16. It is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 1.8.2024

Vinay