Ravi Ranjan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the side opposite/CBI and perused the record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. RC0062025A0023 of 2025, under Sections 61(2) of BNS and Section 7, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-CBI/ACB, DistrictLucknow.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

He further submitted that vide order dated 06.11.2025, this Court allowed the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10635 of 2025 filed by co-accused Adarsh Yogi and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.11.2025 reads as under:

¶14

"The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the present case, and the same could be deduced from the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR as also from the facts indicated in the charge-sheet particularly in paragraph nos. 16.21, 16.23 and 16.25 of the charge-sheet. The referred paragraphs of the charge-sheet are extracted hereinunder:-

¶15

"16.21 Investigation has revealed that the team members and the independent witnesses observed that three persons were present in the said vehicle. Thereafter, one person wearing full sleeve light colour shirt and dark pant (later identified as Santosh Kumar Jaiswal) came out of the vehicle followed by another person wearing white and blue lining half shirt and jeans with blue backpack on his shoulders (later identified as Gayasuddin Ahmad). Phone call recordings containing call between Ravi Ranjan and Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, collected during investigation, reveal Ravi Ranjan told Santosh Kumar Jaiswal that he is sending someone to

¶16

BAIL No. 10962 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

fetch him inside and Santosh Kumar Jaiswal should come up to the first floor directly with the bag. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal was seen having conversation with one person of fair complexion wearing light blue half shirt and dark pant (later identified as Adarsh Yogi, Inspector, CBN, Lucknow) near the entry gate of CBN office. Thereafter, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal took the backpack from Gayasuddin Ahmad and followed Aadrsh Yogi, Inspector, CBN inside the CBN office, while Gayasuddin Ahmad stayed back. After sometimes, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal was seen returning without the backpack. He was seen having some conversation with Gayasuddin and thereafter, Gayasuddin Ahmad was seen going inside the CBN office. After few minutes, Gayasuddin Ahmad returned, went up to the aforesaid Tata Nexon vehicle and had conversation with Santosh Kumar Jaiswal. Thereafter, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, along-with the Sunil Kumar Jaiswal, who was driving the vehicle left in the said vehicle. A team of CBI officers followed the said vehicle of Sunil Kumar Jaiswal.

¶19

16.22 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

¶20

16.23 Thereafter, accused Ravi Ranjan was intercepted at the ground floor of office of DNC, CBN, Lucknow office, and, he, along with accused Gayasuddin Ahmad, was taken to the office chamber of accused Ravi Ranjan. Thereafter, accused Ravi Ranjan was challenged that he had demanded and accepted undue advantage of Rs. 10,00,000/- from accused Gayasuddin Ahmad, in criminal conspiracy with Mahipal Singh and Aadrsh Yogi, both Inspectors, CBN, Lucknow, for settling the matter/case of Gayasuddin. On which, he became perplexed. Meanwhile, other accused Mahipal Singh, Inspector, CBN was also intercepted and he was challenged regarding the demand and acceptance of undue advantage of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Ranjan and Aadrsh Yogi, both Inspectors, CBN, Lucknow from Gayasuddin Ahmad for settling the matter/case of Gayasuddin Ahmad. On which, he became perplexed. Thereafter, Adarsh Yogi was intercepted by the CBI team from the office of Sh Rohit Raj, Superintendent (Preventive), CBN Office, Lucknow and he was challenged regarding the demand and acceptance of undue advantage of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in criminal conspiracy with accused Ravi Ranjan and Mahipal Singh, from Gayasuddin Ahmad for settling the matter/case of Gayasuddin Ahmad. On which, he became perplexed.

¶21

16.24 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

¶22

16.25 Investigation has revealed that on denial of demand and acceptance

¶23

of bribe by all the three accused CBN Inspectors namely Ravi Ranjan,

¶24

BAIL No. 10962 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Mahipal Singh and Aadrsh Yogi, the search of the common chamber/room of accused Inspectors Ravi Ranjan, Mahipal Singh and Adarsh Yogi of CBN, Lucknow, where they used to sit, was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and a blue-colored Skybag backpack of Gayasuddin Ahmad containing documents belonging to Gayasuddin, was recovered and seized but alleged bribe amount was found missing. After that, scrutiny of the CCTV camera footages was done, which revealed that Santosh Kumar Jaiswal followed Aadrsh Yogi inside the Preventive Section on the 1st floor of CBN, Lucknow office, where Mahipal Singh and Ravi Ranjan were already present. Santosh Jaiswal was seen leaving the said room without backpack after sometime. No visuals were observed in the CCTV Footage showing removing of the said bribe money of Rs.10 lacs from the said office chamber. Thereafter, a thorough search by the CBI team in the presence of independent witnesses of the said office chamber/ room was once again conducted. During the search, the bribe amount of Rs. 10 lacs was recovered from wall built almirah. The said bribe money was found wrapped in a cloth and which was kept in a cloth file folder bag in obscure manner to prevent detection."

¶27

5. The above quoted paragraphs of the charge-sheet reliance has also been placed by learned Counsel for the CBI Sri Anurag Kumar Singh.

¶28

6. It is stated by learned Counsel for the applicant that from a bare perusal of the chargesheet including paragraph nos. 16.21, 16.23 and 16.25, it is apparent that there is no evidence available with the prosecution that Rs. 10,00,000/- was available in sky blue coloured backpack of co-accused Gayasuddin Ahmad and in this view of the matter it would be very difficult for the prosecution to establish it's case before the trial court that Rs. 10,000,00/- was demanded by the co-accused Mahipal Singh and the same was provided by co-accused Gayasuddin Ahmad to the co-accused Mahipal Singh, which according to the case of prosecution was recovered from the wall built almirah of a common chamber/room alleged to be of accused persons.

¶29

7. It is further stated that applicant has been implicated with the aid of Section 120B of IPC and there is no evidence to connect the applicant in the offence in issue, as if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value then the applicant accompanied the coaccused Gayasuddin Ahmad to the place where the co-accused Mahipal was present. Prayer is to grant bail to the applicant.

¶30

8. It is also stated that charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant case and in this view of the matter there is no possibility of tampering the evidence of the prosecution and it is also stated that applicant is not in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses as all are official witnesses.

¶31

BAIL No. 10962 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

9. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 251.

¶34

10. Opposing the present bail application, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the side opposite/CBI, says that applicant was involved in the crime as co-accused Gayasudeen Ahmad indicated his name in statement. He also stated that CCTV footage also supported the prosecution story.

¶35

11. In response, it is stated that based upon the statement of co-accused, which could not be relied upon as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the trial court would not pass the judgment of conviction.

¶36

12. It is also stated that no doubt in the CCTV footage, the applicant was present at the place of crime, but this alone would not establish that the applicant and co-accused Mahipal Singh were hands in gloves and the applicant was involved in the crime/demand of bribe money as alleged by the prosecution.

¶37

13. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 27.08.2025 and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶38

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and contents of chargesheet and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail."

¶39

Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the side opposite opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and as also the fact that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶41

Let the applicant- Ravi Ranjan be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith.

¶42

BAIL No. 10962 of 2025

¶43

5

¶44

Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶45

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶46

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶47

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶48

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶49

(v) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶50

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶51

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶52

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶53

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶54

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶55

Application is disposed of.

¶56

November 11, 2025 Jyoti/-

¶57

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶58

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Ranjan v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ranjan v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb 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

Baby Reva Nitin Jaiswal Thru Friend Father Nitin Jiawal Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Ms. Inaya Khan and Another Thru. Mother Shahida Jamal Siddiqui Vs Daud Khan and Another

Pramod Kumar Misra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow and 3 Others

Munna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others