High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12633 of 2022 Applicant :- Abdul Kayum @ Kayum Master Opposite Party :- Central Bureu Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Riyaz Askari,Mohd. Hasham,Syed Faiz Hasnain,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the name of the applicant in feeding by the office is incorrect. Office to look into the same and correct the name of the applicant in its computer. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Abdul Kayum @ Kayum Master, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. R.C.1202021A/0012, charge-sheet no. 15 dated 31.12.2021 in Special Case No. 01/2022 R.C. No. 1202021 / A 0012, under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station C.B.I. (A.C.B.), District Ghaziabad. The present case is a trap case. The same started on an application dated 25.11.2021 by one Khairati the original complainant to the Branch Head, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ghaziabad alleging therein that he is a farmer, for farming he required some money on which he contacted Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Branch Laltikar for a K.C.C. loan and applied for it. He completed the paper formalities but still he did not get the loan. He was called by the bank officials many times. Later on he was issued a passbook bearing No. Krishi Card No. 84288899615143 but no loan amount was transferred in it. He then met the Branch Manager Girish Chandra on 24.11.2021 and enquired about the loan. Girish Chandra demanded Rs. 8000/- as bribe from him and stated that only then he will get the loan amount of three lakhs. While coming out from the bank he met Kayum Master (the present applicant) who was a bank employee who called him and said that he has to pay Rs. 8000/- to the Manager and Rs. 2000/- to him and only then his work would be done otherwise he would keep running. He states that he does not want to give any bribe to Girish Chandra and bank employee Kayum Master. Legal action be taken against them. On the basis of the said application, enquiry was conducted and after verification trap proceedings were laid. Subsequently on 30.11.2021 from 9.30 onwards the trap proceedings started and 16 notes of Rs. 500/- denomination were treated with phenolphtalein powder and were marked as notes for being given in bribe which are said to have been given to Girish Chandra and are said to have been recovered. A recovery memo was prepared being a Post-Trap Memorandum on 30.11.2021 at 13.45 hours. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant has been arrested and an Arrest Cum Personal Search Memorandum was prepared which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit but during the search of the applicant only Rs. 710/- was recovered from his possession which is claimed by him as his own money. It is argued that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and Girish Chandra in which the applicant is stated to have conspired with co-accused Girish Chandra and the money was given to him. It is argued that the applicant is neither an employee of bank nor has any connection with the working of the bank. The applicant was asked by the trap team to be a witness of the proceedings which was refused by him as such he has been implicated in the present matter. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the applicant. The recovery is of Rs. 8000/- which has been kept in an envelope and marked as trap money which is said to have been recovered from the table of co-accused Girish Chandra. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 01.12.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail. While opposing prayer for bail, learned counsel has placed paragraph 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit dated 11.04.2022 and it is argued that the complainant gave an application dated 25.11.2021 of which a first information report was lodged on 29.11.2021. The present proceedings are trap proceedings. The applicant is a private person who had also demanded Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for getting the work done through Girish Chandra the Branch Manager of the bank. It is argued that this part of the prosecution case has been found to be genuine during verification. It is argued that there was a conversation between the complainant and the Branch Manager and the applicant, the transcript of which is mentioned in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit in which the applicant had demanded Rs. 8000/-. It is argued that even the proceedings of trap go to show that the bribe money was handled by the applicant as his hands were also washed and the solution turned pink. It is argued that implication of the applicant is there in the matter. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is a private person. He is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2000/- to facilitate the K.C.C. loan of the original complainant after the Branch Manager had demanded Rs. 8000/-. In the trap proceedings there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant- Abdul Kayum @ Kayum Master, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties will be of his family members and the other will be of a local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.11.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.11.25 16:35:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad