Allahabad High Court
Dharmdas Patel vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 27 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11998
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8131 of 2024
Applicant :- Dharmdas Patel
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag.S.Kaalesh,Shashank Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 05 of 2024 under sections 07/13(1)(b) & 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act P.S.- Anti Corruption, Banda District- A.C.O.U.P.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant was posed as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department and the power with respect to issuance of the electricity vests with the Executive Engineer and thus, there was no occasion for demanding any illegal gratification from the informant. He submits that the prosecution has failed to substantiate that there was any occasion for demand of illegal gratification. He also submits that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC, 731. He referred the paragraph nos. 88.1 to 88.4 of Neeraj Dutta (supra), which is quoted hereinunder:-
"88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above-said and added that due to animosity, the instant first information report has been lodged and further, there is no other substantial evidences to corroborate the story of prosecution. He also added that the applicant is law-abiding citizen and he was never involved in committing offence and his conduct & behavior is above-board, during his service period. He added that the applicant is a public servant and thus, he will not abscond from the trial proceedings and chargesheet has been filed thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 26.05.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since26.05.2024; chargesheet has been filed; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; the prosecution has prima facie failed to substantiate the occasion of demand of illegal gratification coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
Let the applicant- Dharmdas Patel involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, 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:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and
(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025
Mayank
