Dismissed

Ankita Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025BAIL/1116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by a police probationer arrested in a trap while allegedly demanding Rs.10,000 to expunge minor daughters' names from an FIR. Court found trap proceedings genuine, marriage claim bald and unaccepted, investigation ongoing, and rejected bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ankita Pandey vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12298

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1116 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ankita Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Rajpal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ankita Pandey seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 13 of 2024, under Section 7/13 (1)(b), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.- Anti-Corruption Gorakhpur, DistrictGorakhpur.

¶9

A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 23.11.2024 by In-charge Trap Team Anti-Corruption Department, Gorakhpur against the applicant regarding arrest of the applicant and recovery of Rs.10,000/- from her on the basis of arrest and recovery memo, alleging therein that an application was given by Smt. Urmila on 14.11.2024 to the said department alleging therein that on 25.09.2024 at about 04:00 P.M., due to some dispute with regards to children a dispute occurred between her and her neighbour Smt. Neetu Devi for which Smt. Neetu Devi lodged a F.I.R. against her, her husband and her daughters aged about 14 years and 11 years as Case Crime No. 781 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 329(3) BNSS, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur whereas her both daughters were not involved in the same. Investigation of it was entrusted to the applicant Ankita Kumari who demanded Rs.20,000/- for expunging names of her minor daughters. She pleaded poverty on which she agreed to do it in Rs.10,000/- and assured her that names of her minor daughters would be expunged. She pleaded a lot to her but she refused to do the same without taking money. Looking to the future of the girls and under compulsion, she agreed to it but does not want to give

¶10

bribe to her and wants her to be arrested so that corruption may not further grow. On the said application a pre-trap inquiry was conducted after which trap proceedings were initiated and then the notes of Rs.500/- denominations being 20 in number were treated and given to be handed over to her. Later on the said notes were given to the accused/applicant who then kept it in a diary kept on the table on which she was apprehended at about 15.05 hours on 22.11.2024 and the notes were recovered. Arrest and recovery memo was prepared on the basis of which the present F.I.R. was lodged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para no. 16 of the affidavit in support of bail application, that as per proviso of Section 480(1)(ii) of BNSS, 2023 the applicant is entitled to the benefit of it since she is a woman. Further while placing para-17 of the affidavit it is submitted that marriage of the applicant is scheduled to be solemnized on 20.02.2024 and as such she be directed to be released on bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant was a probationer in police department. While placing the confessional statement of the applicant it is submitted that even from the same it transpires that money was recovered from the diary kept on the table and not from the possession of the applicant. Further learned counsel has placed the statement of Constable Praveen Kumar Tiwari who has stated that his diary was taken by the applicant which would go to show that the money was kept therein was not bribe money and was being planted on her. It is submitted while placing para-16 of the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. She is in jail since 23.11.2024.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that trap proceedings are genuine proceedings adhering to all checks and balances in it. The required precautions were taken by the trap team and after handing over of the bribe money subsequent action was taken by the trap team as per procedure. It is submitted that the present case is a trap case in which the applicant was arrested accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the original complainant. It is submitted that the applicant was the person who was investigating officer of a case in which the husband and the minor daughters of the original complainant and she herself were accused and to exonerate minor daughters of the original complainant, had demanded bribe money on which an application was moved and pre-trap inquiry was conducted and

¶13

after being satisfied with the allegations leveled therein, trap proceedings were laid in which the applicant was arrested. It is further submitted that in so far as the averments regarding marriage of the applicant being scheduled on 20.02.2025 as stated in para-17 of the affidavit is concerned, as per instructions received the same has not been admitted and it is mentioned that the same is only in order to give the case a different colour and has no relevance with the present matter. It is submitted that the applicant, even at her initial stage of career, has been involved in corruption and has been apprehended accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- in which she has been arrested in trap proceedings. It is further submitted that investigation in the matter is still going on and the entire evidence is yet to be collected. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be thus rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that on a complaint by the original complainant pre-trap proceedings were conducted and finding the allegations to be correct trap was laid in which the applicant was arrested accepting Rs.10,000/-. The applicant has motive for demanding and accepting bribe since she was investigating officer of the case lodged by neighbour of the original complainant against her, her husband and two minor daughters and had demanded bribe for exonerating her minor daughters. As of now there is nothing on record to show that the proceedings of trap were false, fabricated and recovery was planted. Averment regarding marriage of the applicant is a mere bald averment which has also not been accepted by the State counsel as per his instructions. Investigation in the matter is still under progress.

¶15

Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, no ground to release the applicant is made out.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Naresh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankita Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ankita Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Sonali Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Karan and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Vishakha Goyal vs State of Up

Ram Yagya vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Yadav vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Rai and Another vs State of U.P. and Another