Allowed

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 May 2023BAIL/9170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application in a corruption case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After correcting clerical errors in the memo, the Court held that the applicant lacked authority to grant meat licenses, the charge of demand and acceptance was not made out, and custodial arrest was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail pending trial on personal bond and two sureties, with undertakings to appear regularly and not seek adjournments.

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106241

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9170 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manjari Singh,Kunal Ravi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mrs. Manjari Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that the description at the top of the memo of the Bail Application is incomplete in as much as the memo of the Act is not mentioned and secondly in place of District Bareilly, District Shahjahanpur has been mentioned inadvertantly. The same mistakes have also crept in the prayer clause of this application. She therefore seeks the permission of the Court to correct the same.

¶8

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

¶9

Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶10

Let necessary corrections in the description at the top of the memo of Bail Application and in the prayer clause of the Bail Application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

¶11

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Vijay Kumar Verma seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0005 of 2022, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Department) District- Bareilly during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 15.12.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 15.12.2022 was lodged by first informant Inspector Bhupesh Kumar Rai and was registered as Case Crime No. 0005 of 2022 Under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance

¶13

Department) District- Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. the applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶14

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant who is working as a designated officer for Food and Safety Department is alleged to have made a demand of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant for granting him the license for selling meat.

¶15

The complainant appears to have given an information regarding above to the Vigilance Department. Accordingly, a trap was laid on 15.12.2022 and applicant was caught red handed with cash worth Rs. 12,000/-. The result of the chemical test in respect of the recovery made from the applicant is also against the applicant.

¶16

Mrs. Manjari Singh, the learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named accused but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

¶17

It is next contended that it is an undisputed fact that applicant is working as designated officer in the Food and Safety Department. However, irrespective of above, under the relevant rules and regulations the applicant has no authority in law to grant the license for sale of meat. To buttress her submission she has invited the attention of court to the notice issued by FSSAI i.e. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India which is on record at page 51 of the paper book. On the basis of above, she contends that the application for permission for sale of meat has to be made online. Attention of the court was then invited to a similar FSSAI notice which is on record at page 55 of the paper book. On a conjoint reading of the said notices, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the applicant had any authority to grant license for the sale of meat. On the above factual premise, it is urged that the very demand said to have been made by applicant is prima facie not made out against the applicant. She has then referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and with reference to above, she submits that the acid test of "demand and acceptance" which is required to be established for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of P.C. Act as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 (paragraph 68) is not attracted in the present case. Moreover mere

¶18

possession of money by itself does not lead to the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of above, reference has been made to the following judgments:

¶19

(i). State of M.P. Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Varma (2013) 14 SCC 153.

¶20

(ii). C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 314.

¶21

(iii). Prabhat Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 14 SCC 516.

¶22

(iv). M.R. Purushottam Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247.

¶23

(v). B. Jayraj Vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55.

¶24

(vi). G. Hariharnath Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 44. (vii). Satvir Vs. State of Delhi (2014) (13) SCC 143.

¶25

(viii). State of A.P. Vs. P. Venkateshwarlu (2015) 7 SCC 283.

¶26

Even otherwise, the 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 16.12.2022. As such, he has undergone almost five months of incarceration. The charge sheet has already been submitted, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution now stands crystallized. 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. Reference has also been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 6) in support of above. On the above premise it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. She thus contends that applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶27

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since the applicant was caught red handed and recovery to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- was made from applicant, the chemical test regarding which also prove the recovery, therefore, at this stage prima facie it cannot be said that

¶28

applicant is innocent. The charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he may pressurizes the witnesses and hamper the course of trial. In the light of above, the learned A.G.A. contends that no indulgence be granted by this court in favour of applicant. 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.

¶29

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused applicant and accusations made coupled with the fact that by virtue of the FSSAI notices which are on record at pages 51 and 55 of the paper book, there was no authority with the applicant to grant the license for sale of meat which applicant could have been made only "Online" before the appropriate authority, the demand as alleged to have been made by applicant is therefore, prima facie not acceptable, acid test which is required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act as explained by the Constitution Bench as noted above being not satisfied, the charge sheet having been submitted, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution now stands crystallized, there being no such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (Supra), the fact that mere possession of money is not automatically violation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 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.

¶30

15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶31

Let the applicant, 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:-

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

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.

¶38

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Gaurav

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari 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

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Omkar Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others