Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector vs State of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11170

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11063 of 2024

Applicant :- Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash,Dinesh Kumar,Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 024 of 2024 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S.- Lucknow Vigilance Establishment District - Lucknow.

¶8

As per the prosecution story, Dinesh Kumar Patel was an accused in Case Crime No. 435 of 2023 under sections 406 and 420 of IPC P.S. Para, District- Lucknow filed an application alleging therein that a demand of Rs.50,000/- for submission of final report is sought by the Investigating Officer subsequently, the same was allegedly settled on the amount of Rs. 20,000/and this was intimated to the U.P. Vigilance Establishment District-Lucknow and accordingly, a vigilance trapped the applicant on 02.09.2024 wherein, the applicant was got red handed with cash of Rs. 20,000/- (illegal gratification) in the nomination of Rs. 500 currency notes and the chemical test qua.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the first information report bearing Case Crime No. 435 of 2023 under sections 406 and 420 of IPC was lodged by one Radhna Sharma and the complaint with respect to demand of illegal gratification was on behest of the accused namely, Dinesh Kumar Patel. He submits that the applicant being the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation on 12.08.2024 after collecting all the evidences and preparing the parchas and the closure report was submitted on 01.09.2024. He submits that there was no occasion for demand of the illegal gratification, when all the

¶10

documents were collected in favour of the accused persons and even otherwise, the complaint is not made by the informant rather it is by the accused in whose favour, the final report was submitted on 01.09.2024 itself whereas, the trap is done on 02.09.2024. He submits that the prosecution has failed to substantiate that there was any demand of illegal gratification or any occasion has ever arisen to ask for the same.

¶11

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on paragraph no. 88.1 of the law rendered in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State(Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 4 SCC 731. Paragraph 88.1 is quoted hereinunder:-

¶12

"(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (1) and (ii) of the Act."

¶13

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been held by the Apex Court that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the prosecution is sine qua non, in establish to the guilt of the accused and so far as the present case is concerned since, the prosecution has failed to substantiate that there was any occasion to demand the illegal gratification and therefore, the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above-said.

¶14

He further contended that issue with respect to the presumption which is raised in the above-case, by counsel for the State, regarding establishing the guilt of the accused, has also been dealt with in the aforesaid case, in paragraph no. 88.7 and it has specifically been held that the presumption is also subject to the rebuttal and therefore, the same is the issue which can be dealt with by the trial court and this is not relevant at the stage of grant of bail. He also submitted that except apart the aforesaid there is no other cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him in the instant matter and the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and his whole carrier remain unblemished all over his service period and he was never involved in committing any offence as is specifically mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the bail application. He also submits that the charagesheet has been filed thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses and the applicant is a public servant and he is languishing in jail since 02.09.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed

¶16

the contentions aforesaid and submits that there is specific allegation in the first information report and the applicant had sought the illegal gratification and once the complaint was made to the vigilance team at Lucknow, the team raided on 02.09.2024 and the applicant was caught red handed and all the formalities were completed then. He next submits that the applicant cannot decline that the such raid was not done and thus, there is presumption against the applicant that he has committed the offence. He also added that the applicant being the public servant has more responsible rather than others and therefore, he must be dealt with strict measures, therefore, submission is that he is not entitled for any relief.

¶17

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was deputed as Investigating Officer in case crime no. 435 of 2023 lodged by one Radhna Sharma and the complaint is lodged by the accused namely, Dinesh Kumar Patel in favour of whom the final report was submitted on 01.09.2024 by the present applicant. Further, it is also apparent that the same was not controverted by the State Counsel that all the evidence which could favour the accused was collected up till 12.08.2024 and prima facie, there seems to be no occasion so as to demand the illegal gratification from the accused Dinesh Kumar Patel. This Court has also taken note of fact that the ratio of judgment in Neeraj Dutta's case as is held in paragraph no. 88.1 supports the version of the applicant as prima facie, it is apparent that the occasion of demand of illegal gratification as well as the demand is not strongly substantiated.; Further, so far as the issue of presumption is concerned that has been dealt with in paragraph no. 88.7 of the said judgment wherein, it has been held that presumption itself is not enough, but the rebuttal at the same time is also open for such accused person and in fact the presumption would be looked into at the stage of trial where, the applicant-accused would have an opportunity to rebut the same.

¶18

It is also noticed by this Court that chargesheet has been filed and there seems to be no possibility that applicant would tamper the evidences; the applicant is admittedly a public servant and there would be no probability that he would flee away from the other criminal proceedings coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 02.09.2024 and the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of

¶20

conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Ram Dev Gupta involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶22

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶23

(2) 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. He 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;

¶24

(3) 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.; and

¶25

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Mayank

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector v. State of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector v. State of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment 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

Pappu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Vijay Kumar Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sarfaraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Cb.Cid, Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.