High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2024,under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti-Corruption, District Mirzapur during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant gave an application to the In-charge Inspector, Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur on 30.09.2024 making allegations inter alia that he had moved an application on 27.09.2024 to the effect that out of 1.0600 hectare of land of Gata No. 10293-Kha, he got registered agreement of only 0.1265 hectare of land. Out of the remaining area, he has moved an application under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code being computerized application No. T80202405031, fee whereof amounting to Rs. 7610/-, is required to be deposited for declaration of aforesaid land as non-agricultural land. In this connection, he contacted area Lekhpal and informed him about the computerized application. Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, area Lekhpal demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) for giving report. When the complainant expressed his inability and requested the Lekhpal that he is not in a position to give Rs. 50,000/-, the Lekhpal has agreed to take Rs. 20,000/-. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a preliminary/pre-trap enquiry was conducted for prima facie satisfaction to proceed further in the matter. On being satisfied with the opinion given in the enquiry report, a trap team was constituted to catch the Lekhpal-Raj Kumar Mishra red handed while accepting bribe. The currency notes, already numbered, were coated with an invisible powder and after completing pre-trap formalities, the trap team along with independent witnesses and complainant proceeded to the designated place to execute the trap proceeding. It is the case of the prosecution inter alia that when the complainant went to the temporary ofÏce of the Lekhpal, he questioned the complainant about the money, which was agreed to. When the complainant told him that he has brought the money, the applicant asked the complainant to give him. Thereafter, the complainant took out the treated notes from the upper left pocket of his shirt and gave it to the applicant, who after taking notes in his hand started counting it. As soon as Raj Kumar Mishra accepted the bribe, the trap team apprehended him red handed. On his hands being dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of solution changed to pink, which prima facie proved that he has taken the currency notes in question. Thereafter, Shri Krishna Mohan Rai (Inspector, Anti-Corruption, Mirzapur) got a first information report lodged in the matter against the applicant on 04.10.2024 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. The applicant was posted as Lekhpal in Kota on 15.07.2023 but before his arrest in the present case on 04.10.2024, he was placed under suspension on 01.10.2024 on the report dated 03.09.2024 of Tehsildar, Obera. Since the applicant was not in a position to extend any benefit to the complainant, hence there was no occasion for the applicant to make demand of alleged bribe. The allegation against the applicant is false. There was no application of the complainant Pawan as alleged in his complaint or in the F.I.R. As per report of SDM, Paras had moved an application on 27.09.2024 for declaring 0.0630 area of land of plot no. 10293-Kha non-agricultural land under Section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was pending at the level of Revenue Inspector at the time of trap of the applicant and later on, said application of Paras was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2024 by the SDM, Obera, Sonbhadra. The pre-trap inquiry was not conducted considering broader aspects of the matter and a wrong report has been submitted that the applicant is a corrupt public servant. Trap proceeding is also not conducted fairly. There was no telephonic conversation of the complainant with the applicant. No agreement could have taken place between Paras and complainant Pawan in view of Section 99 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as Paras belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. Much emphasis has been given by contending that report is submitted by Tehsildar and not by the applicant. In fact, the complainant is son of village pradhan and he used to grab the land of weaker sections of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The complainant being son of village pradhan was discharging all the duties of his mother Murhiya Devi and was involved in illegal activities. Earlier, two F.I.Rs. bearing Case Crime No. 38 of 2017, under Section 409 IPC and Case Crime No. 135 of 2020, under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420 IPC were registered against Murhiya Devi (mother of the complainant) regarding financial irregularity and embezzlement of Gram Panchayat funds. Since the applicant has submitted report dated 26.07.2024 against encroachers of the land, therefore, he has been implicated in the case. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.10.2024. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that evidence of demand and accepting bribe are very much available on record. The applicant was trapped by trap team while accepting bribe. As per Call Detail Report (C.D.R.) of the mobile number, which was used by the applicant, it transpires that the complainant and the applicant were talking to each other before trap and on the date of trap, i.e., 04.10.2024 also. As per F.S.L. report dated 25.10.2024, sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein were found by separate analysis in liquid samples. Traces of phenolphthalein were also found by separate analysis on recovered treated notes. The general reputation of the applicant is not good and he has an image of not doing any work without taking money. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is settled that if there is demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant, then prima facie there is a presumption of dishonestly carrying out some activity by him. Hence, innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage. It is also submitted that since the statement of complainant is yet to be recorded before the trial Court, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected, otherwise there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 20,000/- The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands as a different class as they affect fabric of the society. As on date, there is no credible material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant. The presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. In order to ensure corruption free society, liberty of bail is to be denied in larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. The submissions / defence raised on behalf of the applicant as noted above are required to be proved in accordance with law before the trial Court, hence this Court at this stage is not making any comment on the same. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2024,under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti-Corruption, District Mirzapur during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant gave an application to the In-charge Inspector, Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur on 30.09.2024 making allegations inter alia that he had moved an application on 27.09.2024 to the effect that out of 1.0600 hectare of land of Gata No. 10293-Kha, he got registered agreement of only 0.1265 hectare of land. Out of the remaining area, he has moved an application under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code being computerized application No. T80202405031, fee whereof amounting to Rs. 7610/-, is required to be deposited for declaration of aforesaid land as non-agricultural land. In this connection, he contacted area Lekhpal and informed him about the computerized application. Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, area Lekhpal demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) for giving report. When the complainant expressed his inability and requested the Lekhpal that he is not in a position to give Rs. 50,000/-, the Lekhpal has agreed to take Rs. 20,000/-. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a preliminary/pre-trap enquiry was conducted for prima facie satisfaction to proceed further in the matter. On being satisfied with the opinion given in the enquiry report, a trap team was constituted to catch the Lekhpal-Raj Kumar Mishra red handed while accepting bribe. The currency notes, already numbered, were coated with an invisible powder and after completing pre-trap formalities, the trap team along with independent witnesses and complainant proceeded to the designated place to execute the trap proceeding. It is the case of the prosecution inter alia that when the complainant went to the temporary ofÏce of the Lekhpal, he questioned the complainant about the money, which was agreed to. When the complainant told him that he has brought the money, the applicant asked the complainant to give him. Thereafter, the complainant took out the treated notes from the upper left pocket of his shirt and gave it to the applicant, who after taking notes in his hand started counting it. As soon as Raj Kumar Mishra accepted the bribe, the trap team apprehended him red handed. On his hands being dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of solution changed to pink, which prima facie proved that he has taken the currency notes in question. Thereafter, Shri Krishna Mohan Rai (Inspector, Anti-Corruption, Mirzapur) got a first information report lodged in the matter against the applicant on 04.10.2024 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. The applicant was posted as Lekhpal in Kota on 15.07.2023 but before his arrest in the present case on 04.10.2024, he was placed under suspension on 01.10.2024 on the report dated 03.09.2024 of Tehsildar, Obera. Since the applicant was not in a position to extend any benefit to the complainant, hence there was no occasion for the applicant to make demand of alleged bribe. The allegation against the applicant is false. There was no application of the complainant Pawan as alleged in his complaint or in the F.I.R. As per report of SDM, Paras had moved an application on 27.09.2024 for declaring 0.0630 area of land of plot no. 10293-Kha non-agricultural land under Section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was pending at the level of Revenue Inspector at the time of trap of the applicant and later on, said application of Paras was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2024 by the SDM, Obera, Sonbhadra. The pre-trap inquiry was not conducted considering broader aspects of the matter and a wrong report has been submitted that the applicant is a corrupt public servant. Trap proceeding is also not conducted fairly. There was no telephonic conversation of the complainant with the applicant. No agreement could have taken place between Paras and complainant Pawan in view of Section 99 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as Paras belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. Much emphasis has been given by contending that report is submitted by Tehsildar and not by the applicant. In fact, the complainant is son of village pradhan and he used to grab the land of weaker sections of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The complainant being son of village pradhan was discharging all the duties of his mother Murhiya Devi and was involved in illegal activities. Earlier, two F.I.Rs. bearing Case Crime No. 38 of 2017, under Section 409 IPC and Case Crime No. 135 of 2020, under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420 IPC were registered against Murhiya Devi (mother of the complainant) regarding financial irregularity and embezzlement of Gram Panchayat funds. Since the applicant has submitted report dated 26.07.2024 against encroachers of the land, therefore, he has been implicated in the case. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.10.2024. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that evidence of demand and accepting bribe are very much available on record. The applicant was trapped by trap team while accepting bribe. As per Call Detail Report (C.D.R.) of the mobile number, which was used by the applicant, it transpires that the complainant and the applicant were talking to each other before trap and on the date of trap, i.e., 04.10.2024 also. As per F.S.L. report dated 25.10.2024, sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein were found by separate analysis in liquid samples. Traces of phenolphthalein were also found by separate analysis on recovered treated notes. The general reputation of the applicant is not good and he has an image of not doing any work without taking money. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is settled that if there is demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant, then prima facie there is a presumption of dishonestly carrying out some activity by him. Hence, innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage. It is also submitted that since the statement of complainant is yet to be recorded before the trial Court, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected, otherwise there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 20,000/- The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands as a different class as they affect fabric of the society. As on date, there is no credible material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant. The presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. In order to ensure corruption free society, liberty of bail is to be denied in larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. The submissions / defence raised on behalf of the applicant as noted above are required to be proved in accordance with law before the trial Court, hence this Court at this stage is not making any comment on the same. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad