Allowed

Anurag Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/18488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court allowed bail for a Lekhpal accused of taking a bribe. The court found prima facie that the acid test of demand and acceptance was not satisfied and custodial arrest was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed; applicant ordered to be released on bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Anurag Gangwar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102182

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18488 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anurag Gangwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Anurag Gangwar, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Sungarhi, District-Pilibhit during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 14.03.2023, a prompt FIR dated 14.03.2023 was lodged by first informant-Sri Praveen Sanyalay, Team Incahrge and was registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Sungarhi, District-Pilibhit. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that a complaint was made by complainant on the basis of which a trap was laid on 14.03.2023. Applicant was caught red handed with cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the chemical test in respect of the recovery made from the applicant was also conducted. The result of same is against the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

¶12

It is next contended that applicant is working on the post of

¶13

Lekhpal. The prosecution story as set out in the complaint filed by complainant is to the affect that a request was made for execution of the sale deed in respect of the land alleged to have allotted in favour of the applicant. It is subsequent to above, that a demand of Rs. 10,000/- is said to have made by the applicant which was fulfilled by the complainant and therefore the consequential action. Learned counsel for applicant contends that under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, a Lekhpal has no right to execute a sale deed regarding the land leased in favour of a government lessee. It is only the lease hold rights which can be either of temporary or perennial nature under the terms of the deed itself. On the above premise, he contends that the allegations made against applicant that a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made for getting the sale deed executed is wholly misconceived. He, therefore, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned criminal case on account of extraneous consideration.

¶14

On the above premise, it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the acid test "Demand and Acceptance" which is required to be proved for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention and Corruption Act as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 is not satisfied against applicant up to this stage.

¶15

The recovery is only of a meagre sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicant is a poor Class-III employee working on the post of Lekhpal. Applicant is in custody since 14.03.2023. As such, he has undergone almost 2 months of incarceration. According to the learned A.G.A., the charge sheet has already been submitted on 06.05.2023. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial. Reference has also been made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 6). On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶16

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since applicant has been caught red handed and the chemical test conducted in respect of the recovery also proves the same, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. The charge sheet has already been submitted against him. In case, applicant in enlarged on bail,

¶17

he shall misuse the liberty of bail by persecuting the witness. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶18

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, accusation made and complicity of accused coupled with the fact that applicant is simply a Class-III employee working on the post of Lekhpal, the applicant has no right to execute the sale deed in respect of land leased to a government lease under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016. In view of above, the grievance of the complainant prima-facie appears to be incorrect and erroneous, the recovery amount being only Rs. 10,000/-, the charge sheet having been submitted therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands crystallized, there being no such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, prima-facie, the acid test required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act being not satisfied against applicant, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (Supra), the clean antecedents of the applicant, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶19

12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant-Anurag Gangwar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶23

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL

¶24

DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶25

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶26

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶27

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶28

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Vinay

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lullu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Braj Bhushan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sher Singh vs State of U.P. and Another