Vivek Verma vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11410 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vivek Verma vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181359
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3420 of 2023   
 
   Vivek Verma    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Kuldeep Johri, Vimlendu Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.      

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.95 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(V), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when after submission of charge-sheet, applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application in the year 2023 then vide order dated 01.05.2023, he has been enlarged on anticipatory bail and from the order dated 01.05.2023, it could not be reflected that applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail for any specific time period and, therefore, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal and others Vs. State of NCT Delhi and another (2020) 5 SCC 1, it reflects that applicant has already been released on anticipatory bail till trial and therefore there is no need to pass any further order and instant application may be disposed off in view of the order dated 01.05.2023.

4. Learned A.G.A. also conceded the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits, in the light of order dated 01.05.2023 instant application may be disposed off.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. The instant anticipatory bail application is pending since the year 2023 and on 01.05.2023 following order has been passed:

"Heard Mr. Vimlendu Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Vivek Verma, in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(V) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Sungarhi, District-Pilibhit during the pendency of trial i.e. Special Case No. 1878 of 2020 (State Vs. Vivek Verma) under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Sungarhi, District-Pilibhit now pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), Bareilly.

Record shows that an FIR dated 09.04.2020 was lodged by first informant, Inspector Chandilal Auliya which was registered as Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 13(1)(V) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Sungarhi, District-Pilibhit. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Vivek Verma who at the relevant point of time was working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Village Development Officer) at Pilibhit has been nominated as solitary named accused.

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that in spite of due opportunity established to applicant, no explanation has been offered by the applicant with regard to his income. The preliminary investigation by the vigilance call reveals that applicant is in possession of wealth beyond his known sources of income.

After lodging of aforementioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The cheque period is said to be of 17 years and 4 months. During the preliminary enquiry, queries were made from the applicant with regard to known sources of income.

The applicant is said to have duly disclosed his known sources of income including his income from agricultural holding, which is said to be 36 Bighas of land and also his rental income. Apprehending that the aforesaid aspect of the matter shall not be taken into consideration, applicant sent a registered letter on 03.03.2020 with regard to the above addressed to Mr. M.P. Singh, Vigilance Inspector, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly.

Thereafter, the statement of the applicant was recorded by Investigating Officer on 21.02.2021. The said statement is on record at page 78 of the paper book. He has invited the attention of Court to the said document and on basis thereof, he submits that known sources of income of applicant were duly stated before Investigating Officer. However, without considering the facts disclosed by applicant with regard to his known sources of income, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet dated 02.09.2022.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. The applicant has duly disclosed and explained his known sources of income. In the light of above, it cannot be said that applicant is in possession of wealth which is beyond his known sources of income. The agricultural income of applicant from 36 Bighas of land and his rental income have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. As such, Investigating Officer has not concluded free and fair investigation. Investigating Officer has acted as an agent of prosecution. The resultant charge sheet is therefore, tainted.

It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that since applicant co-operated during course of investigation, no coercive process was obtained by the Investigating Officer for the arrest of the applicant. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which, it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial.

Applicant has been co-operating with the investigation and further undertakes to co-operate with the trial. Even otherwise, applicant is a Class-III employee working on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Village Development Officer). As such, there are no chances of the applicant fleeing away from the trial.

On the cumulative strength of above, he contends that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of applicant.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. He contends that since charge sheet has been submitted against applicant, therefore, remedy of applicant is to approach the court below and seek bail. There is no such special circumstance on the basis of which, the present anticipatory bail application should be allowed. Reference has also made to the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.

Notice on behalf of opposite party 1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. He prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above, evidence, as well as the complicity of applicant-appellant, accusation made, coupled with the fact that the FIR was lodged against applicant in the year, 2020, the charge sheet has been submitted in the year, 2022, the applicant has been co-operating with the investigation during the entire period of investigation, no necessity was felt by the Investigating Officer to secure the custody of the applicant during the period of investigation, no any coercive process was observed agaisnt applicant by the Investigating Officer, no such special circumstance having been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. that custodial arrest of applicant is necessary during the course of trial, the applicant being a Government Servant and therefore, there are no chances of his fleeing away from the trial, bona-fide of the applicant is explicit from his letter dated 03.03.2020 addressed to the Vigilance Inspector stating therein that his known sources of income i.e. agricultural income and rental income be also considered, the statement of the applicant having been recorded by the Investigating Officer in April, 2021, wherein the facts stated in the letter dated 03.03.2020 have been reiterated, the cheque period being of 17 years and 4 months, prima-facie, the explanation offered by the applicant with regard to his known sources of income appears to be satisfactory but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant-Vivek Verma shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

7. From the order dated 01.05.2023, it reflects that however, on 01.05.2023, co-ordinate bench of this Court directed that the instant matter shall be listed after expire of six weeks but it also reflects, vide order dated 01.05.2023, applicant has been released on anticipatory bail and from the order dated 01.05.2023, it could not be reflected that it was time bound order.

8. As in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Sushila Agarwal (supra), anticipatory bail should not be time bound and it will continue till trial if there is no time bound order, therefore, there is no need to pass any fresh order and applicant shall continue on anticipatory bail pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court till conclusion of trial.

9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off in light of the order dated 01.05.2023.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

October 10, 2025

S.A.