Allahabad High Court

Anoop Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ... on 21 May, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30129
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4452 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Anoop Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Tanmay Krishna Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Crime No.RC0062025A0010, under Section 61(2) Bhartiya Nyan Sanhita, 2023, r/w 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a complaint dated 28.03.2025 given the proprietor of a private agency stating that he had participated in a man power outsourcing tender floated by Garrison Engineer (West) MES, Prayagraj through GeM and his tender was accepted. When he had gone to receive the letter of acceptance, Ravi Singh, Garrison Engineer and Vimal Kumar, Assistant Garrison Engineer demanded Rs.2.88 lacs bribe. This complaint was verified and thereafter RC0062025A0010 was registered on 28.03.2025. A trap was laid down and it is recorded in the post trap memorandum that the accused Vimal Kumar had directed the complainant to meet J.E. Anoop Singh (the applicant) and delivered the demanded bribe amount to him. Vimal Kumar told the applicant that "wo leke rakh lena". The complainant offered Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant to the applicant, the applicant gave him a brown envelope and asked him to keep the amount in the envelop and he went out of the room. Thereafter, a contractual employee took the envelope. The complainant went to accused Ravi Singh, G.E. (West) and told that he had given the amount on the direction of Vimal Kumar, AGE.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in another criminal case has been disclosed in para 11 of the affidavit, in which he already stands acquitted by means of a judgment and order dated 24.03.2023, passed by the trial court. The judgment of acquittal was challenged before this court and the appeal was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 23.09.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Ravi Singh has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 19.04.2025, passed by the Special Judge CBI (PC Act), Court No.1, Lucknow.

6. Strangely, the same Presiding Officer has granted bail to the co-accused Ravi Singh, Garrison Engineer on 19.04.2025 against whom allegation of demanding of bribe has been levelled has rejected the bail application of the applicant on 03.05.2025. The Special Judge has granted bail to the co-accused Ravi Singh on the grounds that the complainant had met co-accused Vimal Kumar, AGE and on his instructions he contacted the applicant Anoop Singh. Ravi Singh has not been caught red handed and his name did not come up in the conversation between the complainant and the co-accused Vimal Kumar. The trial court rejected the bail application of the applicant on the grounds that the complainant had met the applicant on the instructions of co-accused Vimal Kumar and the applicant took the bribe money and handed it over to Ajay Kumar.

7. The aforesaid reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the applicant's bail application does not appear to be supported by the averments made in the post trap memo wherein it is mentioned that:-

"At about 1806 Hrs. the complainant gave prefixed signal about transaction of bribe by giving missed call over the mobile number of Sh Piyush Verma, Inspector, who alerted the rest of the team members and thereafter, all the team members along-with the Independent witnesses rushed towards the office of accused persons. In the meantime. the DVR was taken back and switched off immediately. Thereafter, the complainant informed that he reached inside the office of accused Vimal Kumar, AGE (Contract) and he was found sitting in his room along-with few other persons, after seeing him (complainant) accused Vimal Kumar, AGE (C) came out of his room and met him (complainant) in corridor and during conversation, accused Vimal Kumar enquired whether he (complainant) has accepted offer validity extension in respect of said tender or not, on which he (complainant) told that he would accept the same in the evening after reaching at his room. During further conversation accused Vimal Kumar directed him (complainant) to meet JE (later identified as Anoop Singh, JE, QS&C, O/o GE(W), MES Prayagraj) and deliver the demanded bribe to Anoop Singh as he (Vimal Kumar) is with some person who are sitting in his office room and pretended that he could not receive the demanded bribe in-front of them. Thereafter, he (complainant) asked accused Vimal Kumar to convey the same to JE, Anoop Singh. On this, Vimal Kumar told JE Anoop Singh that "wo leke rakh lena". Thereafter, he (complainant) took out the tainted bribe money of Rs.1.0 lacs and extended it towards said Anoop Singh JE, on which Anoop Singh asked to wait for a minute and then gave him (complainant) a brown colour envelop and asked him (complainant) to keep the same in said envelop, which he (complainant) did. Thereafter, said Anoop Singh, JE went out of the said room and sent his office staff (later identified as Ajay Kumar, Contractual employee), who took the said envelop containing the tainted bribe money and went to the adjoining room. Thereafter, he (complainant) went to accused Ravi Singh, GE(W) and told him that he had given Rs.1.0 lacs out of demanded bribe of Rs.2.64 lacs to JE on the direction of Vimal Kumar, AGE (C) and further informed that he (complainant) will give remaining amount on coming day, i.e. tomorrow. On this accused Ravi Singh, GE(W) enquired him (complainant) "hmmmm.. aapne mera diya hai ya......aap ek kaam karo cashier ko de do", on this he (complainant) told that "wo sir sahab ne rakh liya apne pass", on this accused Ravi Singh told him (complainant) "Theek....". He (complainant) further informed that to keep an eye on the accused persons and their movement, after coming out of the office chamber of accused Ravi Singh, he (complainant) got engaged in some conversation with Satyendra Tiwari, clerk in the Olo GE(W) and in the meantime, he (complainant) flashed the prefix signal about transaction of tainted bribe money to CBI team, after which CBI team came and caught all the accused persons on his (complainant) instance."

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has opposed the prayer for bail.

9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the complainant made specific allegation of demand of bribe by Ravi Singh, Garrison Engineer and Vimal Kumar, Assistant Garrison Engineer and he did not level any allegation against the applicant; that the complaint was lodged against the aforesaid two persons and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. or even as per the narration made in the post trap memo the demand for bribe money was made by one of the named accused persons Vimal Kumar and he had directed the applicant to hand over the money to the applicant; that the allegation against the applicant is that he had handed over a brown envelope to the complainant and thereafter he went out of the room, there is no allegation that the applicant either demanded or accepted the bribe money and that the co-accused Ravi Singh against whom allegation of demand of bribe has been levelled has already been granted bail and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant also on bail in the aforesaid crime.

10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

11. Let the applicant-Anoop Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-