Criminal Case No. 2326 of 2022 · High Court

in the present matter. He further submits, in the FIR the income of the applicant has been mentioned as 22,95,407/- and his expenses as 37,43,699/-. He next submits, in the year 2017 final report was submitted by the then Investigating Officer and in the final report his income has been shown as Rs. 51,85,048/- but department returned the final report for further investigation and after further investigation it was found that his income was Rs. 34,18,479/- and expenses were Rs. 45,84,470/- and thereafter charge-sheet has been filed against applicant. He next submits, again further investigation was ordered on 11.08.2018 and during further investigation Investigating Officer opined that charge-sheet which was filed against the applicant in the year 2017 was correct charge-sheet and thereafter sanction was taken against him and charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned and thereafter court concerned took the cognizance.

5. He next submits, when applicant moved discharge application then his discharge application was dismissed by the court concerned by the impugned order but impugned order dated 25.06.2025 prima facie appears to be illegal.

6. He further submits, from the perusal of impugned order dated

25.06.2025 it reflect, without any application of mind court concerned dismissed the discharged application of the applicant. He argued, from second paragraph of order dated 25.06.2025 it reflects, as per court concerned applicant moved an application 50B and in the application he made averment that he has been falsely been made accused in the present matter and he is not having any concern with the present offence and his name was disclosed through the statement of complainant recorded during investigation but no such averment was ever made by applicant in the said application. He further submits, again when court concerned noted the contention of Special Public Prosecutor then also in paragraph-3, while passing the impugned order it was observed that applicant was arrested red 2 of 7 handed while he was receiving bribe, however, admittedly present case does not relate to trap and it is a case of disproportionate income. He next submits, from above facts, it appears, while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant court concerned failed to consider the facts of the case and under influence of wrong facts that it is a case of trap his discharge application has been dismissed.

7. He further submits, it appears even grounds taken by the applicant in the discharge application have not been considered by the court concerned and merely after considering some authorities of the Apex Court his discharge application has been dismissed.

8. He further submits, while taking any decision on the discharge application it is legal obligation upon the trial court to consider the grounds taken in the discharge application and thus court concerned committed gross illegality.

9. He further submits, even from the material available on record i.e. evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie no offence against the applicant is made out under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

10. He further submits, there are material difference in the income of the applicant and his alleged expenses mentioned in the FIR and in the charge-sheet and even in the final report which was filed in the year 2015 and this fact clearly suggests that Investigating Officer could not conduct the investigation properly and entire investigation prima facie appears to be tainted but in spite of that his discharge application has been dismissed.

11. He further submits, even during pendency of the further investigation it reflects, cognizance has been taken although court concerned should wait for outcome of the further investigation and 3 of 7 therefore cognizance order passed by the court concerned was bad but while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant court concerned also failed to consider this fact.

12. He further submits, therefore, impugned order passed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits, applicant being public servant misused his position and it is a case of disproportionate income and after collecting the evidence charge- sheet was filed against him.

14. Learned AGA further submits, from the impugned order however it reflects, some wrong facts have been incorporated in the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 with regard to trap case but from the order dated 25.06.2025 it also reflects that court concerned from paragraph-4 onward also considered the facts of the present case, therefore, if inadvertently some wrong facts have been mentioned in the impugned order then it cannot be said that court concerned failed to apply its judicial mind.

15. Learned AGA further submits, from the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that applicant’s expenses were more than of his known income, therefore, it cannot be said that from perusal of the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that no offence is made out.

16. Learned AGA further submits, law is settled that an accused can only be discharged if entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation is accepted then also no offence is made out against him but in the present case there is no such scenario 4 of 7 therefore court concerned rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by the applicant.

17. Learned AGA further submits, record also suggests that against the charge-sheet and cognizance order applicant approached this Court in Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 4052 of 2025 and that application is still pending.

18. Learned AGA further submits, when anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court then he approached the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4700 of 2025 and on 15.07.2025 the Apex Court dismissed his petition and observed that if petitioner i.e. applicant surrenders before the court concerned within two weeks from today and seeks regular bail then the same shall be considered expeditiously on its own merit in accordance with law but applicant till date did not apply regular bail pursuant to the order passed by Apex Court and this shows the conduct of the applicant.

19. Learned AGA submits, therefore, instant application should be dismissed. Analysis

20. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

21. From the record, it reflects, it is a case of disproportionate income and applicant was Clerk in the office of CMO and his expenses were more than of his known source of income.

22. Record also suggests that however after lodgement of the FIR, in the year 2015 final report was submitted in favour of applicant but in view of the higher authorities Investigating Officer failed to conduct proper investigation, therefore, further investigation was directed and in further investigation the allegations levelled against the applicant 5 of 7 were found correct and it was found that his income was Rs. 34,18,479/- and expenses were Rs. 45,84,470/-, therefore, charge- sheet was filed against him in the year 2017 and however it reflects, again on 11.08.2018 further investigation was directed and in the further investigation Investigating Officer found that the earlier charge-sheet filed against applicant in the year 2017 was correct one and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned and court concerned took the cognizance and when applicant claimed discharge then his discharge application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

23. From the impugned order however it reflects, while passing the same court concerned disclosed some wrong facts by mentioning that it is a case of trap however it was a case of disproportionate income and not a case of trap but from paragraph-4 onward it reflects, court concerned dismissed the discharge application of the applicant on the ground that during investigation it was found that the expenses of the applicant were quite higher than of his income, therefore, argument advanced by learned AGA that it appears, inadvertently wrong facts have been mentioned in the impugned order cannot be ruled out. In view of this Court if merely due to mistake some wrong facts have been mentioned then it cannot be said that court did not apply its mind, therefore, first contention of the applicant appears to be misconceived.

24. Further, it reflects, after considering the entire material available on record court concerned dismissed the discharge application of the applicant and it could not be reflected that no offence is made out against the applicant as charge-sheet clearly indicates that his expenses were in excess than his income and he failed to provide proper explanation in this regard, therefore, it cannot be said that while dismissing the discharge application of the applicant court 6 of 7 concerned did not consider the grounds taken by the applicant in the discharge application.

25. The law of discharge is settled that an accused can only be discharged if from the evidence collected during investigation no offence is made out against him.

26. Further, veracity of the statements of the witnesses and genuinenesses of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer cannot be adjudicated at the time of discharge application. The power to discharge the accused is very limited confined only up to the material evidence available on record and while discharging the accused court cannot consider any other material which was not placed by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet.

27. Further, as per counsel for applicant as there are material contradictions in the FIR and evidence collected during investigation with regard to his income and expenses therefore, he should be discharged. In view of this Court on this ground an accused cannot be discharged in cases of disproportionate income.

28. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, while dismissing the discharge application of the applicant court concerned did not commit any illegality and impugned order dated 25.05.2025 cannot be said to be illegal.

29. Accordingly, the instant application is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 AK Pandey 7 of 7

in the present matter. He further submits, in the FIR the income of the applicant has been mentioned as 22,95,407/- and his expenses as 37,43,699/-. He next submits, in the year 2017 final report was submitted by the then Investigating Officer and in the final report his income has been shown as Rs. 51,85,048/- but department returned the final report for further investigation and after further investigation it was found that his income was Rs. 34,18,479/- and expenses were Rs. 45,84,470/- and thereafter charge-sheet has been filed against applicant. He next submits, again further investigation was ordered on 11.08.2018 and during further investigation Investigating Officer opined that charge-sheet which was filed against the applicant in the year 2017 was correct charge-sheet and thereafter sanction was taken against him and charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned and thereafter court concerned took the cognizance.

5. He next submits, when applicant moved discharge application then his discharge application was dismissed by the court concerned by the impugned order but impugned order dated 25.06.2025 prima facie appears to be illegal.

6. He further submits, from the perusal of impugned order dated

25.06.2025 it reflect, without any application of mind court concerned dismissed the discharged application of the applicant. He argued, from second paragraph of order dated 25.06.2025 it reflects, as per court concerned applicant moved an application 50B and in the application he made averment that he has been falsely been made accused in the present matter and he is not having any concern with the present offence and his name was disclosed through the statement of complainant recorded during investigation but no such averment was ever made by applicant in the said application. He further submits, again when court concerned noted the contention of Special Public Prosecutor then also in paragraph-3, while passing the impugned order it was observed that applicant was arrested red 2 of 7 handed while he was receiving bribe, however, admittedly present case does not relate to trap and it is a case of disproportionate income. He next submits, from above facts, it appears, while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant court concerned failed to consider the facts of the case and under influence of wrong facts that it is a case of trap his discharge application has been dismissed.

7. He further submits, it appears even grounds taken by the applicant in the discharge application have not been considered by the court concerned and merely after considering some authorities of the Apex Court his discharge application has been dismissed.

8. He further submits, while taking any decision on the discharge application it is legal obligation upon the trial court to consider the grounds taken in the discharge application and thus court concerned committed gross illegality.

9. He further submits, even from the material available on record i.e. evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie no offence against the applicant is made out under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

10. He further submits, there are material difference in the income of the applicant and his alleged expenses mentioned in the FIR and in the charge-sheet and even in the final report which was filed in the year 2015 and this fact clearly suggests that Investigating Officer could not conduct the investigation properly and entire investigation prima facie appears to be tainted but in spite of that his discharge application has been dismissed.

11. He further submits, even during pendency of the further investigation it reflects, cognizance has been taken although court concerned should wait for outcome of the further investigation and 3 of 7 therefore cognizance order passed by the court concerned was bad but while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant court concerned also failed to consider this fact.

12. He further submits, therefore, impugned order passed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits, applicant being public servant misused his position and it is a case of disproportionate income and after collecting the evidence charge- sheet was filed against him.

14. Learned AGA further submits, from the impugned order however it reflects, some wrong facts have been incorporated in the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 with regard to trap case but from the order dated 25.06.2025 it also reflects that court concerned from paragraph-4 onward also considered the facts of the present case, therefore, if inadvertently some wrong facts have been mentioned in the impugned order then it cannot be said that court concerned failed to apply its judicial mind.

15. Learned AGA further submits, from the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that applicant’s expenses were more than of his known income, therefore, it cannot be said that from perusal of the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that no offence is made out.

16. Learned AGA further submits, law is settled that an accused can only be discharged if entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation is accepted then also no offence is made out against him but in the present case there is no such scenario 4 of 7 therefore court concerned rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by the applicant.

17. Learned AGA further submits, record also suggests that against the charge-sheet and cognizance order applicant approached this Court in Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 4052 of 2025 and that application is still pending.

18. Learned AGA further submits, when anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court then he approached the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4700 of 2025 and on 15.07.2025 the Apex Court dismissed his petition and observed that if petitioner i.e. applicant surrenders before the court concerned within two weeks from today and seeks regular bail then the same shall be considered expeditiously on its own merit in accordance with law but applicant till date did not apply regular bail pursuant to the order passed by Apex Court and this shows the conduct of the applicant.

19. Learned AGA submits, therefore, instant application should be dismissed. Analysis

20. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

21. From the record, it reflects, it is a case of disproportionate income and applicant was Clerk in the office of CMO and his expenses were more than of his known source of income.

22. Record also suggests that however after lodgement of the FIR, in the year 2015 final report was submitted in favour of applicant but in view of the higher authorities Investigating Officer failed to conduct proper investigation, therefore, further investigation was directed and in further investigation the allegations levelled against the applicant 5 of 7 were found correct and it was found that his income was Rs. 34,18,479/- and expenses were Rs. 45,84,470/-, therefore, charge- sheet was filed against him in the year 2017 and however it reflects, again on 11.08.2018 further investigation was directed and in the further investigation Investigating Officer found that the earlier charge-sheet filed against applicant in the year 2017 was correct one and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned and court concerned took the cognizance and when applicant claimed discharge then his discharge application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

23. From the impugned order however it reflects, while passing the same court concerned disclosed some wrong facts by mentioning that it is a case of trap however it was a case of disproportionate income and not a case of trap but from paragraph-4 onward it reflects, court concerned dismissed the discharge application of the applicant on the ground that during investigation it was found that the expenses of the applicant were quite higher than of his income, therefore, argument advanced by learned AGA that it appears, inadvertently wrong facts have been mentioned in the impugned order cannot be ruled out. In view of this Court if merely due to mistake some wrong facts have been mentioned then it cannot be said that court did not apply its mind, therefore, first contention of the applicant appears to be misconceived.

24. Further, it reflects, after considering the entire material available on record court concerned dismissed the discharge application of the applicant and it could not be reflected that no offence is made out against the applicant as charge-sheet clearly indicates that his expenses were in excess than his income and he failed to provide proper explanation in this regard, therefore, it cannot be said that while dismissing the discharge application of the applicant court 6 of 7 concerned did not consider the grounds taken by the applicant in the discharge application.

25. The law of discharge is settled that an accused can only be discharged if from the evidence collected during investigation no offence is made out against him.

26. Further, veracity of the statements of the witnesses and genuinenesses of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer cannot be adjudicated at the time of discharge application. The power to discharge the accused is very limited confined only up to the material evidence available on record and while discharging the accused court cannot consider any other material which was not placed by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet.

27. Further, as per counsel for applicant as there are material contradictions in the FIR and evidence collected during investigation with regard to his income and expenses therefore, he should be discharged. In view of this Court on this ground an accused cannot be discharged in cases of disproportionate income.

28. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, while dismissing the discharge application of the applicant court concerned did not commit any illegality and impugned order dated 25.05.2025 cannot be said to be illegal.

29. Accordingly, the instant application is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 AK Pandey 7 of 7