Allowed

Anurag Savita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 May 2023BAIL/19698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowance of bail application by Anurag Savita under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Court held that as a contractual employee without disbursing power, the prosecution test under Section 7 was prima facie not satisfied.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to stringent conditions regarding court attendance and case conclusion.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106647

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19698 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anurag Savita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Anurag Savita seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2023 under section 07 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has filed supplementary affidavit in Court today which is taken on record.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that coaccused Prashant Verma approached this court by means of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19756 of 2023 (Prashant Verma Vs. State of U.P.), which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2023. For ready reference, order dated 2.5.2023, is reproduced herein under:

¶11

"Heard Mr. Pulak Gangulay, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Prashant Verma, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 13.03.2023 a prompt FIR dated 13.03.2023 was lodged by first informant Sanjay Kumar Yadav and was registered as Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, under Section 7 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police

¶15

Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad. In the aforesaid FIR the applicant alongwith one Anurag Savita have been nominated as named accused.

¶16

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that both the named accused were trapped by the police team alongwith cash of Rs. 25,000/- each.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named accused but he is innocent. Allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted.

¶18

It is then contended that applicant is simply a contractual employee working as Data-cum-Account Assistant. He, therefore, had no disbursing power at the relevant point of time. He has then invited the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of above, he submits that before invoking the provisions of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is under a legal obligation to establish that there was a demand by the accused and the alleged amount was paid in fulfilment of the alleged demand. It is then submitted that the aforementioned test, which is required to be established for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been further explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724. On the above premise he submits that since applicant is not a permanent Government employee vested with disbursing power or the power to release the amount, the demand alleged to have been made by applicant cannot be said to have been raised by applicant. Even otherwise applicant is a contractual employee. He is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The amount recovered is Rs. 25,000/- only. Applicant is in jail since 13.03.2023 and has undergone more than one and a half month of incarceration. On the above premise it is urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶19

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that applicant has been trapped red handed and the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question is prima facie made out as per the statements of the two victims. Therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned AGA could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶20

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that applicant is working as a contractual employee in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad, at the relevant point of time the applicant was working as Data-cum-Account Assistant, there being nothing on record to establish by the prosecution that there was disbursing power with the applicant on the relevant date, the trapped amount is only Rs. 25,000, the test laid down for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as explained by the Constitution Bench judgment as noted above, prima facie, being not satisfied up to this stage, no such circumstance having been

¶21

pointed out by the prosecution that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary, for investigating aforesaid case crime no. applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant-Prashant Verma, be released on bail in 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:-

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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. "

¶30

On the above premise, he submits that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Prashant Verma. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant could be distinguished from aforementioned coaccused, so as to deny him benefit of bail. He, therefore submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 2.5.2023 referred to above, applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is thus submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 13.3.2023. As such, he has undergone more than two months of incarceration. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶31

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record, at this stage.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, there being no such distinguishing feature in the case of applicant with that of aforementioned co-accused so as to deny him bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶33

Accordingly the bail application is allowed.

¶34

Let the applicant Anurag Savita, 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:-

¶35

¶36

¶37

HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶38

¶39

¶40

(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.

¶41

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her 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.

¶42

Order Date :- 16.5.2023

¶43

Arshad

¶44

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Savita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Savita 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

Sanjay Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Sant Kumar Katiyar Vs Anil Katiyar

Sant Kumar Katiyar Vs Anil Katiyar

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Badar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manappuram Finance Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Nikhil Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another