High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S.- Anti-Corruption Banda, District - ACO U.P.

3. As the per prosecution story, the applicant was trapped in by the Anti Corruption Team and he was caught red-handed while taking the illegal gratification amounting Rs.10,000/-.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the applicant was posted as Lekhpal and due to enmity, the informant intimated to the Anti Corruption Team and while hatching the applicant in the conspiracy, he was caught red-handed. He submits that in fact the applicant himself initiated a proceeding under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 06.06.2024 against the applicant which was registered before the Tehsildar concerned and as soon as the case is registered, an application for measurement was submitted by the informant on 08.06.2024 and that seems to be the first step of conspiracy and later on, on 11.06.2024, the applicant is said to be trapped in. He also added that the prosecution has failed here to substantiate that there was any occasion for demand of illegal gratification as the measurement of the land in question i.e. Gata No.879 was already done on 29.05.2024 by a team of six Lekhpals including the present applicant and the report was submitted on 30.05.2024 and subsequently, the Government allocated the said land for Government construction and constructions have also been raised over there. He also submits that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC, 731. He referred the paragraph nos.88.1 to 88.4 of Neeraj Dutta (supra), which is quoted hereinunder:- "88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act."

5. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that so far as the demand of illegal gratification is concerned, demand must be substantiated by the prosecution and so far as the present case is concerned, it's lacking. He next argued that the applicant is a Government Servant and he has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the chargesheet has been filed. Thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences. Further added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is not entitled for bail as he was caught red-handed while taking bribe and there are ample evidence against the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant being the Government Servant is required to work more responsibly and the nature of the offence is very serious and after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved and while collecting the cogent evidence, chargesheet has been filed, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and he has no previous criminal history; an application was moved by the informant for measurement of Gata No.879, whereas, the fact remains that the measurement of the said land was already completed on 29.05.2024 by the six member committee of Lekhpals wherein the applicant was also the member and thereafter, on 30.05.2024, the report was submitted and on the said land, the Government allowed some constructions over there and that has also been completed; this Court has noticed that once the measurement was already done and some Government constructions were raised over there, prima facie, there seems to be no occasion for further measurement and, therefore, the application dated 08.06.2024 placed by the informant seems to be afterthought; prima facie, this Court also do not find the substantial evidence so far the occasion of the demand of illegal gratification; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the chargesheet has been filed, there seems to be no possibility that he would tamper with the evidences; the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

9. Let the applicant- Devendra Rajpoot involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S.- Anti-Corruption Banda, District - ACO U.P.

3. As the per prosecution story, the applicant was trapped in by the Anti Corruption Team and he was caught red-handed while taking the illegal gratification amounting Rs.10,000/-.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the applicant was posted as Lekhpal and due to enmity, the informant intimated to the Anti Corruption Team and while hatching the applicant in the conspiracy, he was caught red-handed. He submits that in fact the applicant himself initiated a proceeding under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 06.06.2024 against the applicant which was registered before the Tehsildar concerned and as soon as the case is registered, an application for measurement was submitted by the informant on 08.06.2024 and that seems to be the first step of conspiracy and later on, on 11.06.2024, the applicant is said to be trapped in. He also added that the prosecution has failed here to substantiate that there was any occasion for demand of illegal gratification as the measurement of the land in question i.e. Gata No.879 was already done on 29.05.2024 by a team of six Lekhpals including the present applicant and the report was submitted on 30.05.2024 and subsequently, the Government allocated the said land for Government construction and constructions have also been raised over there. He also submits that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC, 731. He referred the paragraph nos.88.1 to 88.4 of Neeraj Dutta (supra), which is quoted hereinunder:- "88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act."

5. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that so far as the demand of illegal gratification is concerned, demand must be substantiated by the prosecution and so far as the present case is concerned, it's lacking. He next argued that the applicant is a Government Servant and he has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the chargesheet has been filed. Thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences. Further added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is not entitled for bail as he was caught red-handed while taking bribe and there are ample evidence against the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant being the Government Servant is required to work more responsibly and the nature of the offence is very serious and after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved and while collecting the cogent evidence, chargesheet has been filed, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and he has no previous criminal history; an application was moved by the informant for measurement of Gata No.879, whereas, the fact remains that the measurement of the said land was already completed on 29.05.2024 by the six member committee of Lekhpals wherein the applicant was also the member and thereafter, on 30.05.2024, the report was submitted and on the said land, the Government allowed some constructions over there and that has also been completed; this Court has noticed that once the measurement was already done and some Government constructions were raised over there, prima facie, there seems to be no occasion for further measurement and, therefore, the application dated 08.06.2024 placed by the informant seems to be afterthought; prima facie, this Court also do not find the substantial evidence so far the occasion of the demand of illegal gratification; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceeding and the chargesheet has been filed, there seems to be no possibility that he would tamper with the evidences; the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

9. Let the applicant- Devendra Rajpoot involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif