Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3266 of 2025 Ram Lalit Patel S/o Late Laxmi Prasad Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Mahewa, Police Station Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Economic Offence Wing/anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.12/2025, registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Amended Act, 2018. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the F.I.R. of the incident was 2 lodged on 14.02.2025 at about 13:15 Hours on the instance of one Ujjwal Pratap Singh, Director of Ramrati Public School, Pachira, Surajpur. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged inter alia on the allegations that, the applicant being the District Education Officer of Surajpur issued show-cause notices to the different schools pointing out certain deficiencies. It has been alleged that, he was demanding commission from the schools and failing which, he has threatened the schools that, he will write a letter to the State Government for cancellation of the recognition. It has been alleged by the complainant that, the President, Director and Principal of 4 schools have approached him, for making complaint against the applicant. The complaint was made to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 13.02.2025, thereafter, the DSP Anti Corruption Bureau has provided the digital voice recorder to the complainant for recording of the demand. On 14.02.2025 along with the team of the Anti Corruption Bureau, the complainant went to the office of the applicant and thereafter, the amount demanded by the applicant was kept in the bag, lying nearby the applicant and thereafter, the Anti Corruption Bureau has caught red handed the applicant along with the bag. It has been alleged that, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was covered with the phenolphthalein power was recovered from the said bag.
Legal Reasoning
the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.” And thereafter, the larger Bench further said : (SCC p. 726, para 60) “60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.” And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72) “71. Office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption of graft or 11 bribe-taking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker. 72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime- doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.” 18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday that corruption has the potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect and it has acted as the formidable enemy of the nation.” 9. From perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the applicant/accused is charged with the offence under Section-7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended Act 2018). It is prima facie evident that the applicant/accused, being a government servant, has been caught in front of five witnesses while taking a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant Ujjwal Pratap Singh in lieu of the compensation amount being provided by the government to the private schools under RTE and the bribe amount has been recovered from the applicant/accused. There appears to be telephonic conversation between the complainant and the applicant regarding illegal demand of money, which has 12 been pointed out in the contention made by the State counsel. The said offence is of serious nature, and in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), this Court is of the opinion that bail applications under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case, the involvement of the applicant is prima facie visible. As such, this Court does not find it befitting to grant the facility of regular bail to the applicant. Therefore, the said bail application submitted by the applicant is rejected. 10. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Ram Lalit Patel involved in Crime No.12/2025, registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Amended Act, 2018, is rejected at this stage. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- Akhil
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has 3 not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the case because the applicant had issued notices to all the schools of the District, pointing out certain deficiencies. The complainant Ujjwal Pratap Singh is running a school known as Ramrati Public School, Pachira and the show cause notice was issued on 05.02.2025 and in the said show cause notice certain deficiencies were found, like (a) no renewal was obtained for Session 2024-25, (b) as per the Chhattisgarh Fees Viniyamak Adhiniyam, 2020 the school Shulk Samiti was to be constituted for determination of fees, but no committee was constituted, (c) that though the English medium school also, but the teachers of Hindi medium are taking the classes and (d) that the school has violated the Right To Education Act, 2009. Likewise the other 4 complainants who are running Priya Bal Mandir Bhatgaon, Saraswati Bal Vidya Mandir, Chhattisgarh Public School Darima, Laxmi Vidya Niketan Narola were also noticed and certain deficiencies were found. Further, the deficiencies pointed out in respect of the school of the complainant and the other 4 complainants were not curable in nature and therefore, they have made the false complaint and implicated the applicant herein. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complainant Ujjwal Pratap. Singh and one Shiv Mohan Yadav were collecting certain amounts from the Management of the 4 schools, in the name of the applicant herein. The written complaints were also made by the different schools. He also argued that at this juncture, the whatsapp group created at the District level, where the Directors, Principals and Authorized Representatives of the different schools were also added. The applicant was also one of the participant in the said group. On 04.02.2025 the applicant has send the massage in the said whatsapp group and has requested the members of the said group that, they should not give any single penny to anyone. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that it is admitted position that on the date of the trap i.e. on 14.02.2025 there was a meeting held in the office of District Education Officer, for compliance of the mandatory provisions of Right to Education Act. After completion of the meeting when the applicant entered in his chamber the complainant was sitting there and all of sudden the ACB team entered in the chamber and the alleged amount was recovered from the bag lying on the floor. It is admitted position and as per the statement of Ujjwal Pratap Singh, Upendra Yadav (Constable ACB), Manish Yadav (Constable office of Deputy Superintendent of Police Ambikapur), the notes were recovered from the bag and the hands of the applicant did not get coloured on washing. It is also admitted position that, the notes recovered from the bag were kept after applying phenolphthalein powder. However, the amount has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant and even the liquid did not get 5 coloured which itself shows that the story of defence is more probable. In fact in absence of any demand the recovery of the notes does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act. No material has been collected by the prosecution/by the investigating agency, which shows that, the said currency notes were directly received by the applicant and even otherwise the hands of the applicant were washed, but the liquid does not get coloured. Lastly, the ingredients of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are missing. There is no demand and in absence of the demand mere recovery of the alleged tainted amount would not amount to an offence. Even if the entire case of the prosecution would be accepted for the sake of argument on its face value as it is, no case is made out. The applicant is an old man and 28.02.2025 was the date of his retirement, but at the fag end of his service carrier, he has been falsely implicated. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 15.02.2025. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the complainant Ujjwal Pratap Singh lodged a report in the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur on 13.02.2025 to the effect that he is the director of Ramrati Public English Medium School located in Village-Pachira, Surajpur. Under the RTE Act, 2009, minimum 25 percent of students are taught free of cost in private schools from primary to 6 higher secondary, in lieu of which the reimbursement amount is provided to the private schools by the government. For certification of all the private schools under Surajpur district, about 15 to 20 lakh rupees have been taken by the District Education Officer, Surajpur i.e. applicant/accused Ram Lalit Patel. All the private schools have received the reimbursement amount for the financial year 2023-24 from the government. The applicant/accused is demanding a bribe amount of 10 percent from all the private schools from the reimbursement amount provided by the government. On not giving bribe in the form of commission, they are threatening to write a letter to the state and get the recognition of the schools cancelled and whatever amount has been received will be put into recovery and a notice has been issued regarding investigation of 05 schools including the complainant’s school by pointing out the deficiencies in them. On not giving the bribe amount, the applicant/accused says that he will write such a note against the schools that they will remember it their life and their school will be closed automatically. After verification of the complaint, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur organized a trap on 14.02.2025 and caught the applicant/accused Ram Lalit Patel taking bribe amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from complainant Ujjwal Singh in front of five witnesses. During the search, the money that came in contact with the bribe amount and other cash amounting to Rs. 2,08,180/- was recovered from the black leather bag of the applicant/accused, 7 which was seized. During the course of investigation the telephonic conversation has been recorded between the complainant and the applicant also which goes to show that the applicant was pressurizing him to meet illegal demand of money hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. The Apex Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab {Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247/2025, decided on 03.03.2025} while dealing with a case relating to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has observed as under: “25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far 8 removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked toname one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. 27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:— “16……‘26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.” 28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court held as under:— “68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all 9 rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption….” 29. In K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court observed thus:— “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity….” 30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula's case, a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under:— “17 Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682, the ConstitutionBench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which wasinserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, hasopined that : (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) 10 “59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats