High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 82 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121489 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2004 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikas Kumar Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Mishra,Vinod Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in R.C. No. 1202025A0003 of 2025, under Sections 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 7 P.C. Act, Police Station C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. Brief facts of the case 4. On 11.02.2025 a complaint was moved by complainant Anil Raghav against co-accused Aftab Singh, Superintendent C.G.S.T, Meerut and applicant, who is Inspector in C.G.S.T., Meerut. As per complaint, complainant was proprietor of Home Care Solution and applicant and co-accused Aftab Singh were making demand of bribe
Legal Reasoning
of Rs. 2 lakhs by indicating discrepancies in the bills of his firm. It is further mentioned in the complaint that on 10.02.2025 applicant through mobile number 9355743104 made Whatsapp call to the complainant for demand of bribe. 5. After the complaint dated 11.02.2025 FIR was registered on 11.02.2025 and thereafter on 12.02.2025 Santosh Kumar was apprehended by C.B.I., who received bribe from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Aftab Singh. Submissions advanced on behalf of applicant 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, applicant is Inspector C.G.S.T., Meerut and allegations levelled against him for making demand of bribe are totally false. 7. He next submits, however, as per complainant applicant on 10.02.2025 made demand of bribe from him through Whatsapp call from mobile number 9355743104 but this mobile number does not belong to him. 8. He further submits, from the counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. also it reflects, above number was issued to one Onkar but when his statement was recorded by C.B.I. during investigation then he stated that although above number was issued in his name but he was not aware how above number was issued in his name. 9. He further submits, however, during investigation when statements of two witnesses Shreya Singhal and Yash Sharma were recorded then they stated that applicant employed them on Rs. 10,000/- per month as Data Entry Operators and above mobile number was used by applicant but these two witnesses were never employed by applicant and actually they were pocket witnesses of the C.B.I. and merely on the basis of their statements it cannot be said that applicant was the person who was using mobile number 9355743104. 10. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, co-accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent C.G.S.T, Meerut also made demand of bribe from the complainant and during investigation also it was 2 of 9 revealed that he also along with applicant made demand of bribe. He further submits, as per CBI co-accused Sachin was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant and from the charge-sheet filed by C.B.I. it reflects, he was driver of co-accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent C.G.S.T. and on his instructions he received bribe, therefore, co-accused Aftab Singh appears to be principal accused. He further submits, co- accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent C.G.S.T. when filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2497 of 2025 before this Court then on 03.04.2025 he has been protected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his order has been annexed at page-47 of supplementary affidavit dated 09.04.2025 filed in support of instant anticipatory bail application. 11. He further submits, except the alleged demand of bribe made by applicant there is no evidence that he also accepted the bribe money and charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed on 04.04.2025 under Section 7 The Prevention of Corruption Act and 61(2) B.N.S. He next argued for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act demand of bribe as well as its voluntary acceptance both are necessary, therefore, offence under Section 7 P.C. Act is not made out against the applicant. 12. He next submits, however, as per C.B.I. applicant is an absconder and did not cooperate with the investigation but allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 13. He further submits, applicant filed anticipatory bail application before the court concerned on 17.02.2025 i.e. within six days from the FIR and after rejection of anticipatory bail application by the court concerned he immediately approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail application on 04.03.2025 and as applicant was 3 of 9 continuously seeking legal remedies, therefore, it cannot be said that he was either absconder or he was evading his arrest. 14. He further submits, applicant is a responsible public servant and he actually neither made any demand of bribe nor bribe money was accepted by co-accused Sachin on his instructions. 15. He further submits, complainant is having bad criminal antecedents and details of the same have been given in supplementary affidavit dated 09.04.2025 filed in support of instant application. 16. He next submits, being man of bad character complainant was continuously making pressure upon the applicant to help him with regard to discrepancies found in the bills of his firm but when applicant shown his inability then he on the basis of false allegation implicated him in the present matter. 17. He next submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and however charge-sheet has been filed against him in the present matter but he is having apprehension if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail as CBI is continuously trying to take his custody even after submission of the charge-sheet. 18. He next submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial. Submissions advanced on behalf of C.B.I. 19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.
Legal Reasoning
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was posted as Inspector in C.G.S.T., Meerut and he alongwith co-accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent C.G.S.T. made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter co- 4 of 9 accused Sachin was arrested while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant and therefore, allegations levelled against him are quite serious as applicant being public servant misused his position. 20. He further submitted that however charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted but during investigation neither applicant nor co-accused Aftab Singh co-operated with the investigation and charge sheet was filed against them in their abscondence. 21. He further submitted that applicant since beginning was not co- operating with the investigation and since beginning he is trying to evade his arrest. He further submits, during investigation several times Investigating Officer issued notices to him but he did not appear before Investigating Officer and therefore competent court also had to issue N.B.W. against him. 22. He further submitted that even during pedencey of the instant application on 18.7.2025 process under section 84 BNSS has been issued against the applicant as he in spite of summons and warrants issued by court concerned did not appear and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 23. He further submitted that however co-accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent of C.G.S.T. when filed anticipatory bail application before this Court then he was protected but his anticipatory bail is still pending and therefore, on the behest of the order passed on the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Aftab Singh, no benefit can be extended to the applicant. 5 of 9 24. He further submitted that during investigation it has been revealed that applicant and co-accused Aftab Singh both made demand of bribe from complainant and applicant was the person who was using the mobile number 9355743104. 25. He further submitted that however, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant but custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. 26. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail. Analysis 27. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 28. The law is settled that power to grant anticipatory bail is an extra- ordinary power and it cannot be exercised in routine manner. The law is also settled that if a person is an absconder or he did not cooperate with the investigation and is trying to evade the execution of warrants and is proclaimed offender then ordinarily he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 29. The Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) in paragraph-25 observed as:- “At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre- arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.” 30. In case at hand, it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.02.2025 and however applicant applied for anticipatory bail before the court concerned on 17.02.2025 but the same was dismissed by the court concerned on 24.02.2025 and thereafter he 6 of 9 filed anticipatory bail application before this Court on 04.03.2025. It appears, during pendency of instant application charge-sheet has been prepared on 04.04.2025 and has been filed on 09.04.2025, which has been annexed along with supplementary counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. dated 20.04.2025. 31. From the charge-sheet it reflects, applicant and co-accused Aftab Singh were not cooperating with the investigation and they were absconding from the investigation since 12.02.2025. 32. From the counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. dated 08.04.2025 it reflects, during investigation on several dates Investigating Officer issued notices to the applicant under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. but he in spite of service of notices did not appear and thereafter court concerned issued N.B.W. against the applicant on 20.02.2025. In reply to paragraph-3 to the counter affidavit dated 08.04.2025 however applicant in paragraph-4 of rejoinder affidavit dated 28.04.2025 stated that it is wrong to say that he is absconding and immediately after the FIR he filed anticipatory bail application before the court concerned and thereafter approached this Court. 33. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet when summons were issued to the applicant then also he did not appear before the court concerned and it appears, thereafter warrants were issued against him and ultimately on 18.07.2025 court concerned issued process under Section 84 B.N.S. (old section 82 Cr.P.C.), therefore, proclamation has been issued by the court concerned against the applicant. 34. In view of this Court, the conduct of applicant indicates that since beginning i.e. since lodgement of the FIR and till date applicant is evading the process issued under law and he is trying to evade the 7 of 9 execution of warrants issued against him. However, it reflects, before issuing N.B.W. and process under Section 84 B.N.S.S. he had filed anticipatory bail applications firstly before the court concerned and after rejection of the same before this Court but in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) no benefit can be extended to him as the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) held that even if an accused filed anticipatory bail application and he was pursuing their rights then also it cannot be said that he was not either evading the arrest or absconding. 35. Further, however, as per observation made by Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay (supra) issuance of warrants or proclamation does not deprive the power of Court to grant pre-arrest bail but such power can only be exercised in extreme and exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice. 36. In case at hand, applicant is public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complaint along with co-accused Aftab Singh, the Superintendent CGST and thereafter another co-accused was arrested red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant, therefore, allegations leveled against the applicant are quite serious and prima facie it appears, he misused his position being public servant. Further, from the charge-sheet filed by C.B.I. it also reflects, during investigation ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer which indicates that applicant and co- accused Aftab Singh made demand of bribe from the complainant. 37. Further, however, it appears, co-accused Aftab Singh, who was superintendent CGST when filed anticipatory bail application then on 03.04.2025 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order that no coercive action shall be taken against him till the next date of 8 of 9 listing but no benefit can be extended to the applicant in view of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in the case of co-accused Aftab Singh as at that time investigation was pending and even only interim protection was given to him and his anticipatory bail application is still pending before this Court and at the time of passing the order dated 03.04.2025 before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation was not available which clearly indicates he and applicant both made demand of bribe from the complainant. 38. Further, offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act should be taken very seriously. The misconduct of a public servant shakes the public trust. 39. Therefore, in view of this Court no exceptional and extreme circumstances exist on the basis of which this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary power to release the applicant on anticipatory bail by ignoring his conduct. 40. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 41. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9