Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. Superintendent of Police Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/4539/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a bail application under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's recovery memo, the absence of sanction, and testimony awaiting verification. Balancing these factors against the lack of flight risk, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to standard conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Superintendent of Police Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33560

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4539 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- Superintendent Of Police Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.

¶7

The instant bail application has been moved by the applicant who has been arraigned in FIR No.RC0062024A0005 dated 15.02.2024 which was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by one Shobhit Singh under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per the contents of the complaint made by Shobhit Singh dated 13.02.2024 it was alleged that the complainant was interested in purchasing Plot bearing No.41-C which was situate at the Railway Crossing Road near Bangarmau Unnao which was adjacent to the land of Dr. Malti Sachan. For the purposes of his self satisfaction, the complainant is alleged to have given an application for demarcation dated 02.02.2024 and it is in this context that the applicant is said to have made a demand of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification which the complainant was not ready to give. The aforesaid complaint was allegedly verified discreetly.

¶9

A trap was set by the respondent and it is alleged that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given to the applicant and there is a conversation whereby the applicant by his gesture directed the amount to be

¶10

placed in black bag-pack which was lying in the ofÏce of the applicant. The said amount is said to have been recovered from the said bag which allegedly belonged to the applicant. It is also alleged that the money which was recovered from the bag was the one on which the currency notes were treated with a chemical substance and upon washing the same, the solution turned pink and thus on the aforesaid basis, the applicant has been apprehended and he has been in jail since 16.02.2024.

¶11

Shri Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been framed. It is further submitted that even in the post trap memorandum, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant had made any demand. It has further been pointed out that the chargesheet placed on record would reveal that the alleged complainant was sent to the ofÏce of the applicant carrying a black bag which is said to have contained certain medicines and a PAN Card.

¶12

It is pointed out that once the complainant is said to have carried the currency notes duly treated with the chemical substance in his pocket, there was no occasion for the complainant to carry the bag. Moreover, the complainant is alleged to have gone alone and there is nothing to connect that the said amount was paid to the applicant as there was no demand at all.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant who has filed a supplementary-afÏdavit today, which is taken on record, has also drawn the attention of the Court to the recovery memo, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.1 with the supplementary-afÏdavit, indicating that the articles which were found during the personal search contained Cash, Adhar Card, Driving Licnece, Government I.D. Card, Mobile Phone, Election Card and one Credit Card. Once all these items were recovered from the person of the applicant and there was no mention of recovery of a PAN Card which is allegedly recovered from the bag, raises a doubt.

¶14

The contention is that once all the Identity Cards were available with the applicant, there was no reason why the PAN Card would be kept in a bag. It is urged that this has been planted for the reason that the complainant was carrying a black bag with him and in order to indicate that the bag was lying in the ofÏce of the applicant and it belonged to the applicant, hence this theory has been cooked up.

¶15

It is also pointed out that even on the bare perusal of the application there does not appear to be any reason why the complainant would give money to the applicant for getting a demarcation done especially when the demarcation in respect of the property belonging to a third party i.e. Dr. Sachan would be through the appropriate Revenue Authorities.

¶16

All this has been done only to falsely implicate and humiliate the applicant who is a public servant. Moreover, even till date, the sanction has yet not been received. The chargesheet is said to have been filed but from the perusal thereof at column-15, it has been stated that the result of the laboratory analysis regarding the conversation and the wash, sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, are awaited. It is thus urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no apprehension that the applicant may flee justice or he would tamper with any evidence or influence any witness.

¶17

Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the aforesaid bail application and submits that the demand was made by the applicant and it is in this context that a trap was set and the currency notes given to the complainant to be handed over to the applicant were treated with a chemical substance. The same currency notes were fund from the bag of the applicant which also contained a pass book as well as a PAN Card belonging to the applicant from the ofÏce of the applicant and this was enough material to implicate and establish the. prima facie , complicity of the applicant to the said crime.

¶18

It is further urged that the issue regarding

¶19

sanction is a matter that is to be seen in trail but the fact remains that the currency notes which were found and upon wash the colour had turned towards pink clearly indicates the involvement of the applicant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bail application be rejected.

¶20

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record, it is not disputed that the Forensic Science Laboratory Reports are awaited and the chargesheet has already been filed by the respondent. Prima facie, it could not be explained that the complainant who was interested in buying a plot of land from Dr. Sachan why would he given an application to get the plot demarcated and request the applicant to do the needful especially when it is neither in the scope of work of the applicant to demarcate such properties.

¶21

Nothing could be brought on record to indicate that the complainant had any sort of agreement regarding the purchase of the property. There is no material to indicate what was the sale consideration which was agreed by the complainant with Dr. Sachan and in what circumstances Dr. Sachan would have permitted the complainant to move an application seeking demarcation of the property under his own name whereas there is nothing to suggest that there was any formal agreement whereby Dr. Sachan is said to have agreed to sell the property to the complainant.

¶22

The material available on record including reading of the post trap memorandum and the chargesheet which has been brought on record, it is prima facie indicates that the complainant allegedly entered into the ofÏce of the applicant all alone carrying a black bag. From the person of the applicant no PAN Card was recovered neither there is a mention of it in the memo of arrest, however, its presence in the black bag is doubted rather it appears to have been planted. In case if the complainant had carried a black bag and another bag belonging to the applicant was available in the ofÏce and it should have been clearly indicated but it does not appear to be the case. The complainant

¶23

was carrying the cash in his pocket to be given to the applicant, there was no reason plausible for the complainant to be carrying a bag. There is no independent witness even the alleged conversation has yet not been verified apart from the fact that it is a clear case where the respondents have stated that the demand as alleged was by gesture in pursuance whereof the complainant is said to have kept the cash in that black bag. There are several breaks in the chain which gives rise to some doubts coupled with the fact that the sanction has yet not been received. In absence of the sanction, apparently the trial court would not have taken the cognizance and for the said reason the trial is also not likely to be concluded soon especially when it has yet not begun.

¶24

It is taking an overall scenario and the submissions made by the respective counsel, this Court finds that there are certain discrepancies as noticed above and there is no apprehension expressed that the applicant would flee justice especially when he is a government servant and he has roots in the society and since the chargesheet has been filed, there is no apprehension that the applicant would influence any witness or tamper with the evidence. The applicant has been in jail since 16.02.2024 and he does not have any criminal history hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Thus for the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the clear view that the applicant deserves to the enlarged on bail.

¶25

Let the applicant Dinesh Kumar involved in FIR No.RC0062024A0005, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶26

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶32

Order Date :- 29.4.2024 ank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar v. Superintendent of Police Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. Superintendent of Police Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Asif Ansari @ Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Rudra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Dhruv Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Daisy and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.