Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2023BAIL/19711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of corruption, the High Court allowed bail despite a prior rejection, holding that the acid test for Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was prima facie not satisfied due to lack of recovery and the applicant's clean antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance, no adjournments, and cooperation with trial.

Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110939

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19711 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Satendra Narayan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant-Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai, in connection with Case Crime No. 622 of 2022, under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictBasti during the pendency of trial.

¶9

The first bail application of applicant i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2123 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2023. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder:-

¶10

"1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant and Mr.M.P. Singh Gaur learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

2. Present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.622 of 2022 under Sections 7, 8, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.

¶12

3. The accused-applicant is employed as Junior Engineer in U.P.P.C.L. The complainant wanted to take a new electricity connection for his business/start up. Line man, co-accused Rahul Kumar told the complainant that he should meet the present accused-applicant in this regard. The complainant met the present accused-applicant who told him that for 3 K.W. commercial electricity connection, 10KV transformer was required to be set up and estimate for setting up the connection would be Rs.80,000/- Besides Rs.80,000/-, other expenses would be required to be incurred by the complainant. The complainant said that he was a poor person and he was just setting up his business. He was not in a position to pay so much money for taking the electricity connection. He requested the complainant that whatever minimum

¶13

amount was required to be paid, he would pay the same. On this the accused-applicant said that he would prepare the bill in accordance with law but for that purpose the complainant would be required to pay Rs.8,000/- to him and Rs.2,000/- to the lineman, Rahul Kumar as bribe amount. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount demanded by the present accused-applicant and therefore, he informed the said fact to Anti Corruption Unit.

¶14

4. The aforesaid complaint was verified and after verification a trap team was constituted. Accused-Rahul Kumar was apprehended demanding and accepting Rs.10,000/- bribe amount, which was later on given to the accused-applicant and the accused-applicant was also caught red handed.

¶15

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused-applicant and co-accused were caught red handed demanding and accepting bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- for electricity connection to the complainant, this Court, at this stage, does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. This bail application is rejected.

¶16

6. The accused-applicant may revive this bail application after evidence of the complainant gets recorded in the court. Trial court should proceed with the trial expeditiously and record statement of the complainant expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.1.2023"

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the order dated 17.01.2023, the complainant has been examined by court below as PW-1. The certified copy of the statement of PW-1 has been placed before Court, which is taken on record. He submits that the complainant in his statement has reiterated the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. However, he submits that applicant is innocent. No recovery has been made from the applicant. No trap was laid in respect of the applicant. The complaint filed by complainant was verified and after verification, a trap team was constituted. Accused Rahul Kumar was apprehended while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The only evidence which has emerged against applicant up to this stage is that co-accused Rahul Kumar who was apprehended red handed, has disclosed that the said amount was received by him was for present applicant-Rajesh Kumar Prajapati.

¶19

Referring to the record (paragraph 16 of the affidavit), the learned counsel for applicant submits that the requisite estimate was already prepared by the applicant and uploaded on the portal of the corporation. The objection has been invited from the applicant regarding the same. Explaining the averments made in paragraph 16 of the affidavit, he submits that physical verification of the spot was required to be conducted in the

¶20

presence of the complainant himself. On the above premise, he submits that the demand alleged to have been raised by applicant is doubtful. Referring to the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act, he submits that acid test itself required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act "Demand and Acceptance" as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 (paragraph 68) primafacie having not satisfied, he submits that no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be said to have been committed by applicant. Even otherwise, 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 24.11.2022. As such, has has undergone almost 6 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The charge sheet has already been submitted but 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. On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that complainant has come out with a clear case that applicant had demanded Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant for submitting the dishonest estimate with regard to the grant 3 K.W. commercial electricity connection to the complainant. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶22

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused-applicant and accusations made coupled with the fact that no trap was laid in respect of applicant, no recovery has been made from applicant, the only evidence that has emerged against applicant is the statement of the coaccused, the complaint made by the complainant with regard to the alleged demand alleged to have made by the applicant is prima-faice not acceptable in view of the averments made in paragraph 16 of the affidavit, in view of above, the acid test which is required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act being prima-faice not satisfied against applicant up to this stage, the clean antecedents of applicant but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai, 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:-

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Vinay

¶32

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

Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai 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

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

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

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sparsh Bisht Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dukhi Prasad Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforecement

Dr Anil Kumar Shukla Vs Central Bureau of Investigation