Rajesh Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.4001 of 2024, under Section 13(2), 13(1)(B) and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption, District- Luknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a public servant and is presently under suspension. He further submits that the applicant did not demand any money from the informant and the entire allegations levelled in the FIR are totally false. The applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 29.07.2024. Charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

From a perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that as per allegation the applicant was posted as clerk in Irrigation Department and to settle the claim of the complainant he made demand of bribe from him and subsequently he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team and even bribe money was also recovered from his possession, but it reflects that neither

¶16

BAIL No. 10244 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

hands of the applicant and complainant were washed at spot where trap was made nor alleged recovered bribe money was sealed at spot. Record also suggest that recovery memo of the alleged bribe has also not been prepared at spot and it appears that all these proceedings have been conducted at Police Station. Considering these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that trap proceeding appears to be doubtful cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

¶19

It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chadra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , has held that when investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, in that scenario the presence of the accused in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. Relevant paragraph no.46 is being reproduced hereinunder.

¶20

"We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. therefore, there presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

¶21

On due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the applicant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 29.07.2024, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let applicant Rajesh Kumar Patel be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

¶25

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶26