Dismissed¶¶18

Anokhe Lal Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2025NABAIL/4910/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J., 24.6.2025) rejects anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 of police Sub-Inspector Anokhe Lal Gangwar in disproportionate-assets/corruption FIR (Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) P.C. Act, PS Junvai, District Sambhal; 94.34% excess assets; check period 1.3.2016–13.8.2020); prior bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2020 (Sections 7/13 PC Act, PS Bhanari) noted; defence deferred to trial; State relied on State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu (2023) 6 SCC 768.

What did the court decide?

On the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out and the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is rejected. ¶¶18

Anokhe Lal Gangwar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the applicant Anokhe Lal Gangwar, a police Sub-Inspector, in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024 under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) P.C. Act, 1998, Police Station Junvai, District Sambhal, arising from alleged disproportionate assets of about 94.34% over his known sources of income during check period 1.3.2016 to 13.8.2020.

¶¶8

Court's answer

On the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out and the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is rejected.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's defence is to be considered in the trial at the appropriate stage, and his explanation before the inquiry officer was not considered sufficient and trustworthy; the inquiry conducted by the informant revealed disproportionate assets in a huge amount, and the applicant, posted in the police department, was previously an accused in a corruption case in which he was granted bail.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The inquiry conducted by the informant revealed disproportionate assets by the applicant in a huge amount, and the explanation of the applicant was not considered sufficient and trustworthy by the inquiry officer.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS — refused. Applicant, a police Sub-Inspector, sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, Police Station Junvai, District Sambhal, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) P.C. Act, 1998, arising from an inquiry directed by the office of the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, which found expenditure of Rs. 65,72,190/- against known income of Rs. 33,81,703/- during check period 1.3.2016 to 13.8.2020, i.e. an excess of Rs. 31,90,487/- (about 94.34%); his explanation was held insufficient and untrustworthy by the inquiry officer. The Court noted the serious nature of corruption by a government servant in the police department, the applicant's earlier corruption case (Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, PS Bhanari) in which he had already been granted bail (order dated 22.1.2021), and left his defence to be considered at trial (State reliance on State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768). Holding no case for interference made out, the anticipatory bail application was rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.; Order dated 24.6.2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:99344

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4910 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Anokhe Lal Gangwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and record has been perused.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application U/s 482 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant Anokhe Lal Gangwar with the following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the application for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Section 13(1)(b), 13(2) P.C. Act, 1998, Police Station- Junvai, District- Sambhal, on the such term and condition as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶10

The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged on 2.1.2024 by Mohd. Ishtiyaq of the Anti Corruption Department, Moradabad, District Moradabad against the applicant, is that an inquiry was conducted on the directions of Additional Director General of Police, Office of DGP Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow regarding disproportionate assets by the accused. In pursuance of which, he conducted an inquiry and found that the accused Anokhe Lal Gangwar, who was posted as Sub-Inspector, during check period 1.3.2016 to 13.8.2020 had his known sources of income as Rs.33,81,703/- whereas during the said period he for the maintenance of his family, purchase of land/plot and purchase of vehicle has spent Rs.65,72,190/-, which is in excess of Rs.31,90,487/- of his known sources of income and as such is about 94.34% excess of his known sources of income. The inquiry has concluded and it has been found that he has disproportionate

¶11

income of his known sources. He was asked to explain the same, but he could not satisfactorily explain it. The FIR has, thus, been lodged against him.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant had moved an application alongwith the entire documents of income and expenditure to the authority concerned, but the same was not considered and the present first information report has been lodged on false and incorrect facts. It is further submitted that the applicant is a government employee and had joined at the post of Constable on 01.09.1988 but the authority concerned has not considered his income in actual. It is further submitted that the income of the family members of the applicant has not been considered by the inquiry officer/informant. It is submitted that the inquiry is totally false.

¶13

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was previously made an accused in a case being Case Crime No.277 of 2020, registered under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Bhanari, District Sambhal, in which applicant had surrendered before the court concerned and was released on bail vide order dated 22.1.2021 passed by this Court. It is submitted that as such the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is a government servant and posted in the police department and was found to be having disproportionate assets to the tune of 94.34% of his known sources of income, which is about the double of his actual income. It is further submitted that even previously the applicant was charged for financial offence of which a first information report was lodged in the year 2020. It is submitted that in so far as the inquiry is concerned, the same was conducted on the directions from the office of Director General of Police Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the reply given by the applicant was considered and then the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the applicant had disproportionate assets and then proceeded to lodge the first information report.

¶15

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that the further defence of the applicant needs to be shown in the trial at the appropriate stage as is settled law and has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu : (2023) 6 SCC 768 . It is submitted that the present case is a case of

¶16

serious nature as it involves corruption by the government servant who is in the police department. As such, the present anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is posted in the police department. In the inquiry conducted by the informant reveals disproportionate assets by him in huge amount. The explanation of the applicant was not considered sufficient and trustworthy by the inquiry officer. His defence has to be considered in the trial at the appropriate stage. Even previously he was an accused in a case of corruption in which he is granted bail.

¶18

Looking to the facts and circumstances and the case, no case for interference is made out. Thus, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.6.2025 Vikas

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anokhe Lal Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anokhe Lal Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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