Allahabad High Court
Gurusharan Singh Gautam vs Central Bureau Of Investigation/ Acb ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:71295
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9558 of 2025
Gurusharan Singh Gautam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation/ Acb Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mohemmed Amir Naqvi, Amjad Siddiqui, Prashant Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Anurag Kumar Singh
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the side opposite/CBI and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. RC0062025A0017, under Section- 61(2) of BNS and Section- 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- CBI/ACB, District- Lucknow.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the present case.
4. It is further stated that the applicant at the time of lodging of FIR was posted as Inspector Railway Protection Force (RPF), Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.
5. It is further stated that according to the complainant namely Dhanraj Verma, the applicant demanded Rs. 60,000/- for not implicating him in a case related to destruction of railway property by the Tractor of the complainant, which incident occurred on 23.06.2025.
6. It is further stated that according to the case of prosecution out of Rs. 60,000/-, demanded, Rs. 10,000/- were given by the complainant to Rahul Sonkar, a vendor at the railway platform, Ambedkar Nagar, on 25.06.2025. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the officers/officials of CBI at Lucknow on 26.06.2025 itself and his request was acceded and a team was constituted.
7. It is further stated that the FIR thereafter was lodged on 27.06.2025, on which date as per the case of prosecution, Rs. 40,000/- were provided to co-accused namely Kamlesh Kumar Sonkar (vendor) out of alleged demanded amount by the applicant.
8. Thus, from from the aforesaid, it is apparent that no amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant.
9. It is also stated that the applicant has been implicated by the CBI through a concocted story based upon the conversation alleged to have taken place between the applicant and co-accused persons namely Rahul Kumar Sonkar and Hitendra Singh.
10. At this stage, on being asked, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate, who appeared for the CBI, based upon material available with him including copy of counter affidavit, fairly stated that no amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the applicant has been implicated based upon the conversation between the applicant and co-accused persons and also the statement of complainant.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the voice samples of the accused persons including the applicant were sent to CFSL, Bhopal for expert opinion and till date, the said report has not been placed before the trial court/on record by the prosecution/CBI and the applicant having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 27.06.2025.
12. It is further stated that the expert report would not be available in near future as the prosecution/CBI has preferred an application dated 13.08.2025 before the trial court for permitting the prosecution to obtain specimen voice sample of accused G.S. Gautam to form an opinion as has been observed by the CFSL, Bhopal, and in this regard, reference has been made to paragraph 10 of the application dated 13.08.2025.
13. It is further stated that the charge sheet in absence of expert report has already been filed and in this view of the matter it can be inferred that the applicant is not in a position to tamper the evidence and also the witnesses of prosecution and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. .
14. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 251.
15. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the side opposite/CBI opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and contents of charge-sheet and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
17. Let the applicant- Gurusharan Singh Gautam be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
18. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law
19. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
20. Application is disposed of.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
November 11, 2025
Arun/-
