Allowed

Anand Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024ABAIL/9500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising from allegations of bribe-taking. The court disposed of the bail application by granting relief subject to conditions, directing the police to complete investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report under Section 193 BNSS on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Anand Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167475

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9500 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anand Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Apul Misra,Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions in the matter for which time was granted to him on 25.09.2024.

¶8

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Anand Kumar Mishra, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 7 of 2024, under Sections 7/7(A)12/13(1)(b)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) B.N.S. (120-B IPC), Police Station Anti-corruption, District Azamgarh.

¶9

Prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the office of the learned Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.: 8072 of 2020 - Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned State counsel as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required since learned counsel for the State informs the Court that he has received the required instructions in the matter.

¶10

The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 01.08.2024 against Saurabh Kumar Gaur and Anand Mishra (the present applicant) on the basis of recovery of money and arrest in which Saurabh Kumar Gaur was arrested with Rs.

¶11

22,000/- and bribe money was recovered in trap proceedings with the allegation that the land of the original complainant was acquired in Expressway for which compensation of Rs. 4,55,354/remained due for which he has gone to the office of District Magistrate where he met the applicant and on his persuasion the applicant demanded 5% as bribe being Rs. 22,000/- for his payment. He made a complaint on which the trap proceedings were conducted and Rs. 22,000/- were to be given as bribe money to the applicant. Subsequently on 31.07.2024 the original complainant along with trap team reached the office where it is alleged that the applicant was not present and he was contacted on phone and then he stated to handover the money to another person who is present in the office on which Rs. 22,000/- was given to Saurabh Kumar Gaur who was then apprehended by the trap team and the money was recovered. A recovery memo and arrest memo was prepared on the basis of which the present FIR has been lodged.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has retired on 30.09.2024 and he was working as Senior Division Clerk in the office of Special Land Acquisition Authority/A.D.M. Administration Collectorate Compound, Azamgarh and as such there was no occasion for him to take bribe money. It is submitted that even otherwise the evidence against the applicant is totally vague. It is submitted that the investigation in the present matter is still pending against the applicant and no report under Section 193 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the police, para 31 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that co-accused Saurabh Kumar Gaur was arrested and bribe money was recovered from him and trap proceedings was conducted. It is submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Saurabh Kumar Gaur. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and an unblemished career as stated in para 28 of the affidavit.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant was the main person who had asked for bribe money but on the day of the incident he was not present and then on telephonic conversation with him, he directed to give the money to another person who was present in the office on which the money was given to co-accused Saurabh Kumar Gaur who was arrested from the spot. It is submitted that the investigation in so far as the applicant is concerned, although has concluded but charge sheet has not been

¶14

filed.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that co-accused Saurabh Kumar Gaur was apprehended by the trap team in a trap proceedings accepting bribe money of Rs. 22,000/-. The applicant is alleged to have stated on telephonic conversation to the original complainant to handover the money to co-accused Saurabh Kumar Gaur. The investigation in the present matter against the applicant is still pending.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant Anand Kumar Mishra , involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193 of BNSS before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶21

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶23

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶24

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anand Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kanhaiya Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of Up 3 Others

Pravin Kumar Rai vs State of U.P.

Basudev Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Furkan vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawaz Khan and 5 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others