Ram Saran Singh vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 36886 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Saran Singh vs State Of U.P. on 11 November, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177635
 
Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32013 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Saran Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pratap Singh,Nitin Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Nitin Sharma, 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-Ram Saran Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under Section 13(2), 13(1)b and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station-Anti Corruption Prayagraj, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 03.7.2024 a prompt FIR dated 03.7.2024 was lodged by first informant-Inspector, Thakur Das and was registered as Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under Section 13(2), 13(1)b and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station-Anti Corruption Prayagraj, District-Fatehpur. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant Ram Saran Singh Revenue Inspector (Kanoongo) has been nominated as solitary named accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that applicant Rakesh Kumar Singh, who is working as Revenue Inspector (Kanoongo) is alleged to have made a demand of Rs. 7,000/- for doing favour to the complainant in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. FIR further records that though the final order had been passed in the aforesaid proceedings but only formal exercise of demarcation (Pattar Gadhi) was to be performed. Accordingly, a police trap was laid on 03.07.2024 and applicant was caught red handed with cash worth Rs.7,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 currency notes.

6. After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He examined the complainant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. On the the basis above and other material collected by him during course of investigation he came to the conclusion that the criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant is prima facie established. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report/charge sheet dated 31.08.2024 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 13(2), 13(1)b and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

7. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the applicant is under an obligation to submit requisite report in terms of Section 23(10) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The formal order under Section 24 had already passed. It is only the final act of identification (Pattar Gadhi) which is to be performed. As such, it cannot be said that applicant has any role to play in the matter. In above of above it cannot be said that there is any basis for the demand alleged to have been made by applicant. As such, the ratio laid down /by the Apex Court in Five Judges Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Goverment of NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online SC 1724, is clearly attracted in the case of applicant.

8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 03.07.2024. As such, he has undergone more than 4 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 31.08.2024. As such, 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 pendency of trial. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant 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.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Applicant was caught red handed. Offence complained of is not only illegal but also immoral. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and coupled with the fact that applicant is working as Revenue Inspector (Kanoongo), therfore, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24(10) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, responsibility to submit the measurement report is upon applicant himself, the said report had been submitted by applicant, on account of above, the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were finally decided, now it is only the demarcation points (Pattar Gadhi) which is to be performed, at this juncture, applicant has no effective role to play, in view of above, it cannot be said that there is any basis for the demand alleged to have made by applicant, as such, the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Datta (supra) is squarely attracted in favour of applicant, there are no chances of the applicant fleeing away from the trial in case he is enlarged on bail as applicant is a government servant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, 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, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments 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- Ram Saran Singh 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 :- 11.11.2024

Imtiyaz