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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7725

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 776 of 2025

Applicant :- Heera Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi,Saubhagya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the State and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, under Section 7, 13(1) (b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.-ACO, Lucknow, District -Lucknow.

¶9

As per the prosecution story, a complaint was made by Sachin Vimal on 19.9.2024 to the Anti Corruption Organization, Lucknow that a false case is registered against him and five other persons and the investigation was transferred to Crime Branch Officer, namely, Heera Singh, who was investigating the matter and, subsequently, he demanded Rs.2 lakh to add the sections of other offences in the aforesaid case crime and as a first instalment, he took Rs.50,000/- wherein a trap was set and he was caught on spot red handed while accepting the aforesaid amount and, thus, an F.I.R. has been lodged against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶10

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the applicant is admittedly the Investigating Officer in the matter registered against the alleged victim but he never demanded any bribe as is alleged. He further submits that ingredients of Section 7 (a) do not attract in the present matter as the prosecution has prima facie failed to establish that the applicant has voluntarily accepted the bribe money. Further, the prosecution has failed to show that there was any demand by the present applicant, who is a public

¶11

servant. He also added that the case of the prosecution so far as receiving the bribe is changed thrice as, on one hand, it has been stated that the bribe is accepted for adding sections and, on the other hand, it is said that the same was for striking off some sections of charges which itself is enough to show that the story is cooked up and concocted. He further submits that so far as the change of colour of hands of the applicant is concerned, no ample evidence is there and this all has been done because of animosity and the collusion between the officer of the Anti Corruption Department and the complainant. He also submits that now the charge sheet has been filed and, thus, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidence or threaten the witnesses. He further submits that whole service career of the applicant has been unblemished and this time he has been made scapegoat due to the enmity best known to the complainant. Further submission is that the applicant is a public servant and he would not flee away from trial proceedings and there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 79 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the charges are very serious and he has been caught red handed by the officer of Anti Corruption Department. They further submitted that F.S.L. also supports the version of the prosecution, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is admittedly the Investigating Officer in the present matter; ingredients of Section 7 (a), prima facie, do not attract in the present matter as the prosecution has prima facie failed to establish that the applicant has voluntarily accepted the bribe knowing it to be bribe. The stand of the applicant is that the prosecution has failed to show that there was any demand by the present applicant, who is a public servant; the stand of the prosecution so far as receiving the bribe are changed materially; the charge sheet has been filed and, thus, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidence or threaten the witnesses; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 79 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2024; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides,

¶15

nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of 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 case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Heera Singh 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.2.2025/Ram Murti

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heera Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Arshkhan Alias Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rajesh Kumar Yadav @ Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jagdammba @ Hurra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Muslim vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home