High Court
Case Details
As per the version of the first information report, a complaint was made by one,Dheeraj Khatik at Police Station-Anti Corruption, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur Nagar alleging therein that he got the joining letter to join at Maharana Pratap Inter College,Bhadwara, Kanpur on outsourcing basis from agency, namely, Lion Security Guards Services on 20-08-2024 and he went to the college on 27-08-2024, wherein he met with the applicant- accused, who was the then working as Principal of the college. The complainant was asked to give Rs. 15,000/- for his joining and subsequently, he became ready to take Rs. 10,000/-, for which, Rs. 5,000/- was to be given in advance and remaining Rs. 5,000/- was to be deducted from the first salary of the complainant. Later on, he was trapped by the anti corruption team and was sent to jail. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant is a reputed person of the society and he never demanded any bribe/illegal gratification, as is alleged in the first information report. He next added that the letter of the appointment of the complainant from the office of the District Inspector of Schools was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08- 2024 and therefore, there was no occasion for asking bribe on 27-08-2024. He submits that the procedure of trap is not followed in it's letter and spirit as is provided under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988'), as Shadow Witness was not present at the very time of the alleged incident. He has also demonstrated the statement of the said witness, which is evident that at the time of alleged incident, the shadow witness was outside of the room, whereas, the incident is said to have taken place inside of the room of the Principal. He next submits that the D.V.R., which controls every CCTV footage, was taken away by the Anti Corruption Team and the chargesheet has been filed, but, there is not a single whisper that any CCTV footage or the photograph, has ever been seen or gone through or used as a proof against the applicant. He submits that infact the CCTV footage is the best proof so as to verify the alleged commission of offence. He argued that infact the Investigating Agency has failed to prove any demand on behest of the applicant, therefore, submission is that no criminal proceeding can go on without any demand as per the law settled in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023)4 Supreme Court Cases, 731. He has emphasized on paragraph nos. 88.1 to 88.4 of the abovesaid Judgment and submitted that while summarizing the issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, is one of the important ingredient to be proved. Further it has also been held that the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification. Thus, much emphasis is drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the demand of illegal gratification in such cases. Adding his arguments, he submits that in the present case the demand of the illegal gratification is doubtful as the letter of the District Inspector of Schools itself, was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08-2024. Further submission is that the chargesheet has been filed and now, there is no occasion for the applicant to tamper the evidences or witnesses,particularly, in a case where the allegation of offence is under the Act, 1988 is concerned. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 30-08- 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. threaten Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on a complaint received from the complainant, the Anti Corruption Team raided and thereafter, completing all the formalities in consonance with the mandate of the Act,1988, the applicant was trapped and arrested and every document, which was required, was taken into possession. He further submits that there are ample evidences against the applicant that he was involved for demanding the illegal gratification and after thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the applicant was involved in committing the offence and as such,the chargesheet was filed. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was posted as Principal of the College and he received a letter from the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 28-08-2024 with respect to the appointment of the complainant and thereafter, a complaint was made and the Anti Corruption team raided the office of the Principal, but, this court finds that the Shadow Witness was not present at the particular place of occurrence as is evident from the statement itself that he was outside of the room therefore he did not see the commission of offence. Further, this court has also noticed the fact that while filing the Counter Affidavit, the State has failed to substantiate that there was infact any demand made on the behest of the applicant as there seems to be no occasion that on 27-08-2024 any demand of illegal gratification could have been done, as the letter of appointment was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08- 2024 and therefore, prima-facie, the case of the present applicant seems to be covered with the ratio of abovesaid Judgment rendered in the case of Neeraj Dutta(Supra). Further, the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there seems to be no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witness and the applicant has undertaken that he will always remain present before the trial court as and when required and there is previous criminal history of the applicant and the learned counsel for the State has failed to corroborate that the applicant was not cooperating in the investigation proceedings coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Ram Prakash Verma, 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.; (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 :- 17.2.2025 AKS
As per the version of the first information report, a complaint was made by one,Dheeraj Khatik at Police Station-Anti Corruption, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur Nagar alleging therein that he got the joining letter to join at Maharana Pratap Inter College,Bhadwara, Kanpur on outsourcing basis from agency, namely, Lion Security Guards Services on 20-08-2024 and he went to the college on 27-08-2024, wherein he met with the applicant- accused, who was the then working as Principal of the college. The complainant was asked to give Rs. 15,000/- for his joining and subsequently, he became ready to take Rs. 10,000/-, for which, Rs. 5,000/- was to be given in advance and remaining Rs. 5,000/- was to be deducted from the first salary of the complainant. Later on, he was trapped by the anti corruption team and was sent to jail. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant is a reputed person of the society and he never demanded any bribe/illegal gratification, as is alleged in the first information report. He next added that the letter of the appointment of the complainant from the office of the District Inspector of Schools was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08- 2024 and therefore, there was no occasion for asking bribe on 27-08-2024. He submits that the procedure of trap is not followed in it's letter and spirit as is provided under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988'), as Shadow Witness was not present at the very time of the alleged incident. He has also demonstrated the statement of the said witness, which is evident that at the time of alleged incident, the shadow witness was outside of the room, whereas, the incident is said to have taken place inside of the room of the Principal. He next submits that the D.V.R., which controls every CCTV footage, was taken away by the Anti Corruption Team and the chargesheet has been filed, but, there is not a single whisper that any CCTV footage or the photograph, has ever been seen or gone through or used as a proof against the applicant. He submits that infact the CCTV footage is the best proof so as to verify the alleged commission of offence. He argued that infact the Investigating Agency has failed to prove any demand on behest of the applicant, therefore, submission is that no criminal proceeding can go on without any demand as per the law settled in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023)4 Supreme Court Cases, 731. He has emphasized on paragraph nos. 88.1 to 88.4 of the abovesaid Judgment and submitted that while summarizing the issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, is one of the important ingredient to be proved. Further it has also been held that the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification. Thus, much emphasis is drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the demand of illegal gratification in such cases. Adding his arguments, he submits that in the present case the demand of the illegal gratification is doubtful as the letter of the District Inspector of Schools itself, was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08-2024. Further submission is that the chargesheet has been filed and now, there is no occasion for the applicant to tamper the evidences or witnesses,particularly, in a case where the allegation of offence is under the Act, 1988 is concerned. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 30-08- 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. threaten Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on a complaint received from the complainant, the Anti Corruption Team raided and thereafter, completing all the formalities in consonance with the mandate of the Act,1988, the applicant was trapped and arrested and every document, which was required, was taken into possession. He further submits that there are ample evidences against the applicant that he was involved for demanding the illegal gratification and after thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the applicant was involved in committing the offence and as such,the chargesheet was filed. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was posted as Principal of the College and he received a letter from the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 28-08-2024 with respect to the appointment of the complainant and thereafter, a complaint was made and the Anti Corruption team raided the office of the Principal, but, this court finds that the Shadow Witness was not present at the particular place of occurrence as is evident from the statement itself that he was outside of the room therefore he did not see the commission of offence. Further, this court has also noticed the fact that while filing the Counter Affidavit, the State has failed to substantiate that there was infact any demand made on the behest of the applicant as there seems to be no occasion that on 27-08-2024 any demand of illegal gratification could have been done, as the letter of appointment was received in the office of the applicant on 28-08- 2024 and therefore, prima-facie, the case of the present applicant seems to be covered with the ratio of abovesaid Judgment rendered in the case of Neeraj Dutta(Supra). Further, the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there seems to be no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witness and the applicant has undertaken that he will always remain present before the trial court as and when required and there is previous criminal history of the applicant and the learned counsel for the State has failed to corroborate that the applicant was not cooperating in the investigation proceedings coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Ram Prakash Verma, 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.; (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 :- 17.2.2025 AKS