Babbu Singh Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. CBI Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73232

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2623 of 2024

Applicant :- Babbu Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Cbi Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2023 in FIR No.RC0062023A0029/2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station - CBI, ACB, District - Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Present applicant is serving as Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department at Lucknow. Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a trap case where the accused/applicant is said to have demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant Harsh Saraswat for enlistment of the complainant as Class - V Contractor with the Central Public Works Department, Lucknow. The present applicant was caught red handed by the team of CBI on 13.12.2023.

¶9

Shri Pranjal Krishna has submitted that in the present case, there is no independent witness, even there is no shadow witness with the complainant. Therefore, the factum of demand of bribe may not be established strictly in accordance with law. The evidence with the prosecution is one recorded voice of present applicant where he is allegedly demanding bribe from the complainant and no F.S.L. report has been received by the prosecution till date to verify the voice of the present applicant and the complainant. Shri Pranjal Krishna has further submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant before the learned trial court concerned. Except this case, the entire service record of the present applicant is unblemished.

¶10

Attention of the Court has been drawn towards Annexure

¶11

No.RA-1, which is the Disability Certificate of the present applicant showing that the applicant is having locomotor disability in his right leg up to 50%. Therefore, Shri Pranjal Krishna has submitted that the applicant is in jail/judicial custody for about 11 months, charge sheet has already been filed, there is no flight risk, the present applicant is a government officer, having his permanent residence and learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court towards paragraph 46 of the dictum of Apex Court in Re.: Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , which reads as under:-

¶13

"46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of the court towards paragraph 10 of the dictum of Apex Court in Re: Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280, which reads as under :-

¶15

"10.The demand for gratification and the acceptance thereof are sine qua non for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act."

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of the court towards paragraph 15 of the dictum of Apex Court in Re: Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 INSC 632 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.10785 of 2024] , which reads as under :-

¶17

"15.The said proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA reads thus :-

¶18

"Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years,

¶19

or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs:"

¶20

Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid judgment in Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has dealt with the issue of the female but referring Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, wherein the reference of sick or infirm person has also been given, which may cover the case of the present applicant, as he is an infirm person.

¶21

Per contra, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is no mandatory requirement to have any shadow witness or witnesses with the complainant at the time of trap, therefore, the contention of Shri Pranjal Krishna, on that aspect, is misconceived. He has further submitted that the applicant was demanding bribe from the complainant and on the call of the complainant, the applicant reached at the spot, where he was arrested and his conversation with the complainant has been recorded, which is a relevant evidence with the prosecution, though the F.S.L. report of that conversation is still awaited. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also submits that charge sheet in this case has been filed.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also considering the aforesaid dictums of Apex Court, I am also of the considered opinion that since the investigating agency has completed investigation and charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court concerned, therefore, the presence of the applicant within the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. About 11 months' period has already passed since the present applicant is within judicial custody and the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Besides, present applicant has been suffering from locomotor disability in his right leg up to 50% and is having his permanent address at Kanpur and is a government officer, so there may not be any flight risk.

¶23

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the fact that present applicant remained in judicial custody till completion of the investigation, charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court concerned, there is no need for custodial interrogation, particularly the fact that applicant has been suffering from locomotor disability in his right leg up to 50% and the undertaking of the applicant that he

¶24

shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant (Babbu Singh Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime/RC number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶31

(v) Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, immediately after release from jail before the court concerned.

¶32

(vi) Applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the court.

¶33

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶34

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 ML/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Babbu Singh Yadav v. Union of India Thru. CBI Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babbu Singh Yadav v. Union of India Thru. CBI Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aman Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime and Investigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Budiram @ Karmraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Kumar Chaudhari and 2 Others Vs the Special Judge (Anticorruption /Cbi, West) Lucknow and 8 Others

Rampratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko