Samraj Vs Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/C.B.I. as well as perused the record.

¶12

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in FIR No. RC 006 2025 A 0006 dated 01.03.2025, under Section- 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Police Station- CBI/ACB Lucknow, District- Lucknow.

¶13

While pressing the instant bail application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶14

He further stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. It is for the reason that the applicant, having no criminal history, was apprehended on 02.03.2025 and accordingly, the period of incarceration would come to around 7 months and maximum sentence of 7 years could be awarded.

¶15

It is also stated that charge sheet has already been filed in the case and in this view of the matter there is no possibility of tampering the evidence and also stated that the applicant is not in a position to influence the witness(es) of prosecution.

¶16

It is also stated that a perusal of FIR in connection of which the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2025 would indicate that it would be difficult for prosecution to establish the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988.

¶17

It is also stated that the recovery of Rs. 15,000/- shown by the prosecution is a fake recovery, which could be deduced from the recovery memo itself, as per which, Rs. 15,000/- were recovered by the prosecution under the towel from the table and all the witnesses of prosecution are in fact the interested witnesses.

¶18

In support of submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 .

¶19

It is submitted that considering aforesaid, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

¶21

BAIL No. 3415 of 2025

¶22

2

¶23

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the ingredients of Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and also the facts related to recovery of alleged amount and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Samraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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.

¶34

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order.

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

October 31, 2025

¶37

Arun/-

¶38

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

Samraj v. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samraj v. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Corruption Bureau 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

Zuber Farhat Khan vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, through Chairman Lucknow and 7 Others

Deva Mishra @ Devanand Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Juvenile Delinquent a (Now Major) Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Haseeb Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Sarfaraz Ali Jafri Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Aditri Shree @ Aditri Srivastava Thru. Her Mother Gunjan Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Thru. S.H.O. Lucknow and 4 Others