Anshul Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12914 of 2025 Anshul Kuamr Sharma State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mayank Chandra, Surya Pratap Singh : G.A. Court No. - 64 1. List revised. HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Anshul Kuamr Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0002 of 2024, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Department), District Prayagraj. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 15483 of 2024 (Anshul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 03.09.2025 that as per the calendar filed by the prosecution before the trial court, copy of which is annexed as annexure 1 to the same, nine witnesses have to be examined before the trial court. It is submitted that PW-1 after completion of his examination- in-chief is not turning up before the trial court and thus non bailable warrants have been issued against him by the trial court on 23.07.2025, para 7, 8 and 9 to the said supplementary has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2024 and the trial will take time for its conclusion. The applicant previously is involved in one other case in which he has been granted bail as stated in para 52 of the affidavit. It is submitted that as such the applicant be granted bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2024. 2 BAIL No. 12914 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 23.08.2024. The order dated 23.08.2024 of this Court rejecting the first bail application of the applicant was challenged by the applicant before the Apex Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024 at that stage. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is going on and it shall be ensured that the witnesses appear in the trial regularly without any delay. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail application is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anshul Kumar Sharma seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.0002 of 2024, u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Prayagraj. 3. The facts of the case are that a FIR was lodged on 22.3.2024 by Rakesh Kumar Chandel under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant on the basis of arrest and recovery memo with the allegation that the complainant Harinath Singh gave a complaint dated 21.3.2024 to the Superintendent of Police U.P. Vigilance Department stating therein that M/S Infrastructures and Developers (Pvt. Ltd.) has a commercial electricity connection of which consent form was given by the Company to the Electricity Department on 18.3.2024. The said connection was disconnected around three months back and for getting it reconnected, an application dated 18.1.2024 was given to the Executive Engineer and for getting its bill prepared, he met the applicant who was the S.D.O, Bindki Road who demanded Rs.25,000/- for it. When he met him on 20.3.2024, he stated that his work could only be done if he gives Rs.15,000/-. He does not want to give the said bribe money but wants the accused to be arrested. On the said complaint pre-trap proceedings were completed and a team was constituted after which 30 notes of Rs.500/- each were taken from the complainant and were treated as per procedure of trap proceedings and then on 22.3.2024 the applicant was arrested accepting Rs.15,000/- as bribe money and the money was recovered with the other formalities of trap. The trap memo was prepared on the basis of which the present FIR has been lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has been a victim of honest and alert work in the department. The applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on 29.12.2007 and since then he has been discharging his duties with full devotion and utmost satisfaction of the authorities for 3 BAIL No. 12914 of 2025 which he was appreciated through various commendation letters. The said letters are annexed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is argued that the applicant had himself made a complaint to the officer regarding irregularities in the department due to which there was financial loss to the department highlighting issues through his letter dated 3.6.2023. It is argued that in so far as electricity connection of the Company of the complainant is concerned, there was no record feeded with regards to disconnection of the same and there was no information given to the higher authorities as is evident from the reply dated 23.7.2024 given under the R.T.I. to the wife of the applicant. It is argued that the trap proceedings are totally false and are concocted proceedings and no such trap had taken place. The present case is a totally false case in which the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 23.3.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the Electricity Department submitted that the Vigilance Department has conducted the proceedings of trap. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was arrested by the Vigilance Department accepting bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the trap proceedings are false. It is submitted that the applicant was posted as S.D.O of the concerned area and had demanded money for getting the electricity connection reconnected of the complainant for which he had demanded money which was being paid and the trap at that time was laid and he was arrested. While placing para 9 of the counter affidavit it is argued that the applicant is involved in one other case in which initially final report was submitted but subsequently on a protest petition he has been summoned to face trial, the said case was registered as Case Crime No.549 of 2015 u/s 420, 504, 506 IPC. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is posted as S.D.O in the electricity department. The allegation against him is of demanding Rs.15,000/- as bribe money on which a complaint was made by the complainant subsequent to which a trap was laid and he was arrested accepting the money. The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected and the money was being demanded for getting it reconnected. In so far as reporting of the disconnection of the electricity connection is concerned, at this stage it cannot be said that the same was not disconnected as then the complainant would not have had any notice and occasion to move an application for reconnection as stated by him and then would not have pursued the matter for any reason. He has a previous criminal case against him. In so far as the challenge of trap proceedings are concerned, as of now it cannot be said that the trap was a false trap, the same can only be looked in the trial after evidence is led. There is recovery of Rs.15,000/- as bribe money from the applicant. There is nothing on record to show as to why the applicant has been falsely implicated and the amount of money cannot be said to be a planted money. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected." 8. Against the said order dated 23.08.2024 of this Court the applicant preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 13723 of 2024 (Anshul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) before the Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024 and with the 4 BAIL No. 12914 of 2025 observation that the Apex Court was not inclined to entertain the said petition at this stage. The said order is extracted herein-below: "1. The notice was issued to the respondent only for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to why the Court was vacant, and why the copy of the charge sheet was not served to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent - State submits that the copy of the charge sheet has now been served and the regular Court is also available. He further submits that the matter is fixed for framing of charge by the Trial Court.
Decision
3. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. 4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 9. The trial in the matter is going on in which examination-in-chief PW-1 has been recorded. Learned counsel for the State has assured the Court that he shall ensure that the witnesses appear before the trial court without any delay. The non-appearance of PW-1 for cross-examination casts some suspicion in the matter particularly when he has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. It is important for his statement to be rewarded in full. No fresh and new ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 13. Copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the trial court and to the learned Government Advocate within one week for necessary action. September 8, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad