Allahabad High Court
Vindesh Kumar Rawat Alias Lekhpal Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 27 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11992
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 671 of 2025
Applicant :- Vindesh Kumar Rawat Alias Lekhpal Shri Vindesh Kumar Rawat (As Per Fir)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Savitra Vardhan Singh,Umesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag.S.Kaalesh,Vivek Mishra
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. 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. 32 of 2024, under sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S.- Lucknow-sector (Starkta Adhisthan), District - Uttar Pradesh (Starkta Adhisthan).
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the applicant was then posted as Lekhpal in the area concerned and an application was made for measurement of some plot which was done on 24.12.2024 and the report was submitted. Further second application was moved on 18.12.2024 whereafter a report was also submitted on 21.12.2024. He next added that the complaint was made through IGRS Portal whereafter a report was submitted by the present applicant on 17.12.2024 and the same has also been endorsed by the Revenue Inspector concerned which is evident in the supplementary affidavit dated 23.01.2025 at page 12 (Annexure No.SA-03). He added that the applicant has been hatched in criminal conspiracy and behind his back some complaint was made to the Anti Corruption Department and in-collusion with the informant, the applicant was trapped in, on 31.12.2024. He added that since the report was submitted on 17.12.2024 and it was incumbent upon the Revenue Inspector concerned to place it on portal though the same was placed on portal on 07.01.2025 but the fact remains that after 17.12.2024, there was no occasion for demand of illegal gratification.
4. He has drawn attention that the applicant is trapped in, on 31.12.2024 and for the period of 14 days there was no occasion and the same could not be substantiated by the State by filing it's counter affidavit. Further submissions is that the case of the present applicant is squarely 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."
5. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that since the prosecution has failed to come with a clear stand regarding the occasion for demand of illegal gratification, therefore, the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of aforesaid judgment. Further, the presumption which can be drawn against the applicant has also been dealt with under the para 88.7 of the above said judgment and it has been held that presumption is always subject to the rebuttal by the accused persons. Therefore, the submission is that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. He next argued that the applicant is public servant and he has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the whole service career of the applicant has been unblemished and above board and he was never involved in committing any offence. Further added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.01.2025 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Team and all the evidences are against the applicant that he was involved in committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He also added that though, the statement of the accused person including the other have been recorded and the matter is concluded but under the pressure of association of Lekhpals the same is not being presented before the trial court. Thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
7. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the complaint was with respect to the demand of illegal gratification and thereafter, the Anti Corruption Team raided and trapped in the applicant and all the formalities were completed in letter and spirit. He also submits that if the applicant is released on bail he can tamper the evidences therefore, he may not be granted bail.
8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that an application to the portal of IGRS was made and in compliance thereof, the present applicant submitted his report on 17.12.2024 and this could be uploaded on the portal on 07.01.2025 by the Revenue Inspector concerned. The factual matrix is that the applicant was trapped in on 31.12.2024 and it is not understandable that what occasion was there for demand of the illegal gratification, once the report by the present applicant who was working as a Lekhpal had been submitted which is evident from Annexure No.3 appended alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 23.01.2025. This Court finds that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment of Neeraj Dutta (supra). It is also noticeable that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and it is an admitted fact that every statement have been concluded and the chargesheet is going to be filed. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history and his service career was always above board. Finally, this Court has taken note of the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.01.2025 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
9. 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.
10. Let the applicant- Vindesh Kumar Rawat Alias Lekhpal Shri Vindesh Kumar Rawat 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
Mohd. Sharif
