Dismissed¶17

Fakir Lal Shah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025BAIL/9184/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; trap case; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2); bail application under Section 483 BNSS; Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, P.S. Anti Corruption Moradabad; demand and acceptance of Rs. 20,000/- bribe; caught red-handed on 22.11.2024; sodium carbonate solution test pink; videography of recovery; presumption of innocence not a ground for bail in trap case; no exceptional circumstances; corruption free society; larger public interest; Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9184 of 2025; decided 3.4.2025 by Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

There is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe. ¶14

Fakir Lal Shah vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Fakir Lal Shah should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024 under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(b) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption Moradabad. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

There is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stand as a different class as they affect the fabric of the society.

¶14

Key takeaways

As on date, there is no credible material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant.ratio¶14
No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant.ratio¶14
The presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.) rejected a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by Fakir Lal Shah in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, Police Station Anti Corruption Moradabad, under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(b) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant over a land possession/encroachment grievance and, in a trap conducted on 22.11.2024, was caught red-handed accepting the bribe, with the sodium carbonate solution test turning pink and the recovery videographed. The Court held that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stand as a different class affecting the fabric of society, that there was no credible material to presume false implication, that no exceptional circumstances were made out, and that the presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case; to ensure a corruption free society, liberty of bail is to be denied in the larger interests of the public/State. Considering the gravity of the offence, the role assigned to the applicant and the severity of punishment, the Court found no good ground for bail and rejected the application, clarifying that its observations are confined to bail and shall not affect the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47185

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9184 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Fakir Lal Shah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupama Parashar,Satendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(b) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption Moradabad, District/Unit A.C.O., U.P. during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case in brief, the complainant gave a complaint dated 12.11.2024 to the Incharge Inspector, Anti Corruption Organization, Moradabad making allegations inter alia that a land measuring area 0.345 hectare of Chak No. 1344, Gata No. 14 situated in Village Majhola has been allotted by the Consolidation Officer to his father, on which illegal foundation was constructed by the opposite party and physical possession has also not been given after measurement. The complainant has given application/representation to higher officers from time to time in this regard but neither the physical possession was handed over to him nor illegal foundation has been removed. In this regard, the complainant met the applicant at police station Bahjoi on Thana Diwas then he demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and called him by bringing Rs. 20,000/on 18.11.2024 at Tehsil Chandausi or Bahjoi Office. The applicant also said that either he himself will take Rs. 20,000/- or he will deliver the same to his driver Daud Ibrahim. He also said that if he will not satisfy the said demand of Rs. 20,000/- then he will

¶9

get stay for the opposite party. Thereafter, he will never get his land back. The complainant does not want to give bribe to the applicant and wants to get his work done by fair means and also wants to get nabbed the applicant red handed while accepting bribe.

¶10

Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted for prima facie satisfaction to proceed further in the matter. On being satisfied with the opinion given in the enquiry report, a trap team was constituted to catch the person concerned red handed while accepting bribe. The currency notes, already numbered, were coated with an invisible powder and after completing pretrap proceedings, powder process, etc., the trap team alongwith independent witnesses and complainant proceeded on 22.11.2024 to designated place to execute the trap proceeding. It is the case of the prosecution that the moment the accusedapplicant accepted the bribe, the trap team nabbed him red handed. Videography of the recovery proceeding was also done. His hands were then dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of solution changes to pink, which prima facie proved that he has taken the currency notes in question. Thereafter Mr. Shailendra Singh (Inspector) got a first information lodged in the matter on 22.11.2024.

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is next submitted that pursuant to order dated 24.10.2024 under Section 9Ka(2) of C.H. Act passed by Consolidation Officer, Chandausi, land bearing Plot No. 1344 has been divided amongst its owner and their names have been recorded in Aakar Patra 23 Part-I. Complainant has also made complaint at IGRS Portal on 10.10.2024 mentioning therein that land in question has been illegally possessed by Puran and others seeking relief for removal of said encroachment and getting possession thereof. The applicant in order to dissolve the issue of encroachment and possession called both the parties and tried to patch up the matter but opposite parties of the complainant refused to hand

¶12

over the possession of the same on the ground that matter is pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The complaint dated 10.10.2024 of the complainant was disposed of on 11.11.2024. It is also pointed out that on 09.11.2024, Muneef – complainant had given an application during Thana Diwas with regard to dispute in question, in which he did not disclose about demand of bribe by the applicant. The complainant is not owner of agricultural land, hence he in order to mount pressure upon the applicant made false complaint. It is further submitted that matter is pending before the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, there was no reason to demand bribe. It is submitted that in absence of conclusive proof of demand, the applicant cannot be prosecuted mainly on the ground of recovery of alleged bribe amount. The applicant shall be presumed to be an innocent unless he is convicted. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that applicant was caught red-handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/-, hence innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe. The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands as a different class as they affect fabric of the society. As on date, there is no credible material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant. The presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. In order to ensure corruption free

¶15

society, liberty of bail is to be denied in larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

¶16

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶18

It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.4.2025

¶20

Shubham

¶21

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

Fakir Lal Shah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakir Lal Shah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devanti Devi vs State of U.P.

X Minor vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Gond vs State of U.P.

Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kiran Chaudhary vs State of U.P.