Allowed

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2025CRLA/2385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail pending appeal; suspension of sentence in corruption conviction; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2); demand of illegal gratification not substantiated; Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) applied; ADM (FR) statement that Lekhpal report not mandatory for mutation; transfer order 31.05.2018 and relieving order 18.06.2018; writ petition 19.06.2018 again

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant/appellant Avadhesh Kumar Singh on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to stated con

Avadhesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2385 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Avadhesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Chaudhary,Gopal Narain Misra,Paresh Mishra,Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- G. A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Admit.

¶7

Summon the trial court record.

¶8

List/put up this case in the week commencing 8.9.2025.

¶9

In the meantime, State may file objection/ counter affidavit and will also file objection on suspension of sentence.

¶10

Liberty is given to the counsel for the applicant/appellant to address on suspension of sentence on the next date.

¶11

O rder on First Bail Applicatio n

¶12

1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, Seniore Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Sri Pt. Gopal Narain Misra and Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsels for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶13

2. This first bail application is preferred in the criminal appeal which has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 21.7.2025 passed by Special Judge P.C. Act II/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in criminal case no. 1405 of 2018 crime no. 740 of 2018 under Section 7/13 (1) d read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Avadhesh Kumar Singh) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for four year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further convicted and sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Earlier period of confinement in jail has been directed to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. All the

¶14

sentence shall run concurrently.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant/appellant was not posted as Lekhpal on the said date of incident in the Tehsil concerned as the transfer order was passed on 31st of May, 2018 and thereafter the relieving order was also passed on 18.6.2018, thus the record was not in the possession of the applicant/appellant therefore question does not arise for demand of illegal gratification. He submits that the date for mutation of the property in question was fixed for 25.6.2018. He also submits that in fact the criminal prosecution was instituted against the applicant for the reasons that against his transfer order he instituted a writ petition on 19.6.2018, thereafter the date was fixed for 4th of July, 2018 and on the said date itself, he has been hatched in conspiracy and was shown to be involved for demanding illegal gratification. He has also drawn attention that he was arrested in the area of Vibhuti Khan Police Station though the first information report is lodged in Gomti Nagar Police Station, which also creates material doubts.

¶16

4. Further contended that the statement of the applicant/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was not posted at the time of alleged incident in Tehsil concerned and therefore, no occasion arises for taking any bribe whereas the same was not considered in its right perspective by the trial court. He next added that since there was no proof with respect to the demand of any illegal gratification but the learned trial court has ignored while passing the impugned judgment and order.

¶17

5. He next submits that the learned trial court is also failed to consider the statement of the ADM (FR) that the report of the Lekhpal for the purposes of mutation of any land is not mandatorily required therefore if the situation was such, again there was no occasion to ask for any illegal gratification and this fact has also left to be considered by the learned trial court.

¶18

6. Adding his arguments he submits that the authority, who granted the prosecution sanction, was not competent to issue the same and this plea was taken but that has also been ignored by the learned trial court and therefore the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court is perverse and erroneous. He submits that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he is public servant and there is no possibility that he may flee away from the proceeding of appeal. He also submits that applicant undertakes that he will always cooperate with the proceedings of appeal and would never indulge himself in any criminal activity therefore submission is that the appellant may be

¶19

enlarged on bail.

¶20

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed the contentions of the appellant but he has failed to substantiate his argument with respect to erroneousness creeping in the impugned judgment and order.

¶21

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it prima facie transpires that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the statement of the ADM (FR) before the learned trial court was that the report of Lekhpal was not required in all eventuality with respect to passing of any order for mutation of any property and that has been ignored by the learned trial court. Further there also seems to be no occasion for asking bribe as the applicant was not posted then at the Tehsil where the matter of mutation was pending and thirdly the fact that after the transfer of the applicant-appellant, the writ petition was filed by him whereafter the date was fixed for 4th of July, 2018 and on 4th of July, 2018 itself, the F.I.R. was lodged which indicates the malicious prosecution of applicant/appellant.

¶22

9. This Court has also taken the note of the fact that the trial court has also ignored the law laid down in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (Supra). In fact for constituting an offence under demand of illegal gratification, the proof of demand must be substantiated, which is missing in the instant matter. I have also noticed that the applicant/appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the same. Further the applicant/appellant has no previous criminal history and he is a public servant and there seems to be no possibility that he may flee away from the proceeding of present appeal. The applicant/appellant is in jail since 17.7.2025. The applicant/appellant undertakes that he will always cooperate with the proceedings of appeal , hence, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶23

10. Let the applicant/appellant Avadhesh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforementioned sessions trial, during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions:-

¶24

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶25

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶26

The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the

¶27

prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶28

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶29

11. It is made clear that fine is not stayed.

¶30

12. On acceptance of bail bonds, the court concerned shall transmit the photo stat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶31

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Anuj Singh

¶32

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

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Mishra @ Khusboo vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and

Sone Lal vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Buddhram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Revisionist Is Minor D Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajat Mishra vs Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Basic Shiksha Adhikari Dist. Amethi