Manoj Kumar Rai Vs C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police A.C.B. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71069

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9976 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent Of Police A.C.B. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal,Chandan Srivastava,Vidhi Pandya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 14.06.2024 in Case Crime No.RC0062024A0016, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Police StationCBI/ACB, Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as per the prosecution story, the present applicant while serving on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, in Railway Protection Force demanded a sum of Rs.12,800/- from one Akash Yadav/ complainant who is the proprietor of Ms. Vishal Traders, Nadarganj, Lucknow.

¶10

As per the prosecution story, the amount of bribe was settled to the Rs.9,000/- and the same has been recovered from the drawer of one office chamber of Inspector of Railway Protection Force. Undisputedly, the present applicant was having his own separate office chamber. After making recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.9,000/- the hand-wash proceedings were carried out and the culpability of the applicant was found. The report of CFSL for chemical examination is still awaited. The charge-sheet has been filed in the instant case against the present applicant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but the trial court concerned has not taken cognizance. Thereafter, for the reason that the prosecution the prosecution sanction has not been granted till date.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is having unblemished service record and there is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The

¶12

applicant is suffering from various ailments for which he may likely be referred to the appropriate hospital. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a matter of fact, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case but the culpability of the applicant, if any, may be ascertained after conclusion of trial proceedings. Since the applicant remained in judicial custody for the entire period of investigation and now the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, if the present applicant is granted bail, the applicant undertakes that the he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has refered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2019] arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2969 of 2019 , wherein the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act as well as relating Sections of IPC have been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was observed that if the accused was not on flight risk and there was no possibility of absconding from the trial, then the accused may be granted bail.

¶14

Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant has referred Para 53 of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.08.2024 in re; Manish Sisodiya Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 8772 of 2024] , which reads as under:-

¶15

"...53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very wellsettled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matter of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in bread. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is hight time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception"...."

¶16

Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I has opposed the bail application by submitting that the applicant has not only demanded the bribe but during handwash proceedings it was clear that the amount which has been received by the applicant was the bribe which was kept in a drawer of one Inspector of Railway Protection Force, however, on the point of other criminal history, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, on the basis of instructions informed that the applicant is having

¶17

no other criminal history. He has also stated that the chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant but the court concerned has not taken cognizance for the reason that the sanction of prosecution has not been granted till date.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Manish Sisodiya Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 8772 of 2024] . Since the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed and the maximum punishment under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is 7 years, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, I find it appropriate that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant namely Manoj Kumar Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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

¶24

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

(v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶26

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Rai v. C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police A.C.B. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Rai v. C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police A.C.B. 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

Krishna Kant Agnihotri Vs Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

Union of India Thru. Oic A.S.C. (Supply) Supp Depot Mathura Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rizwan Zaheer and Anr. vs State of U.P.

Hafiz Fuzail @ Mohd. Fuzail vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko