High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52852 of 2022 Applicant :- Pramod Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA/Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Pramod Dixit, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 905 of 2022, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at P.S. Highway, District Mathura. The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 24.8.2022 at 15:45 hours by Kushalveer Singh, Inspector, In-charge Trap Team (P.C. Act), Agra Unit, Agra, against the applicant on the basis of recovery and arrest memo on a complaint given by Kailashchandra (the original complainant) to the first informant on 22.8.2022 stating therein that he along with his brothers Ashok Kumar and Nandkishore wanted to get mutated their names in the revenue records after which public notice was issued on 18.6.2022. After deliberations the applicant demanded Rs.25,000/- as bribe for the same, after which the said amount was given after collecting it from his brothers. After 2-3 days he received a phone call from the applicant that there is an objection with regard to the same and then he demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for submitting a report in back date. The original complainant and his brothers out of fear collected Rs. 1,25,000/- and gave it to him but his work was not done. They then met with the applicant on 18.8.2022 but he made several excuses and stated that their mutation could not be done as Rs.15,000/- was not given and it was only when the said amount be given to him, mutation can be done. The original complainant thus makes a complaint that he does not want to give the said amount to the applicant and wants the applicant to be caught red handed. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant was asked to meet the trap team on 24.8.2022 along with bribe amount. The applicant is stated to have been arrested accepting Rs.15,000/-. The present F.I.R. thus was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no evidence whatsoever of the original complainant and his brothers giving Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant as has been stated in the complaint/first information report. It is further argued that even the proceeding of trap was stated to have taken place outside the stadium which is a public place, but there is no public independent witness of the proceedings. It is argued that the allegation as levelled against the applicant is totally false and incorrect as is evident from annexure no. 2 to the affidavit in support of bail application which is the report of Lekhpal dated 17.6.2022 from which it can be seen that he had already given his report for mutation of their names and subsequently their names were mutated vide order dated 15.7.2022 passed by Tehsildar, Govardhan, copy of the same is annexure no. 3 to the affidavit in support of bail application. It is argued that as such there was no occasion for the original complainant to given him Rs.15,000/- in the month of August 2022 as the report of Lekhpal was given on 17.6.2022 and the order for mutation was already passed on 15.7.2022. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.8.2022. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and was caught red handed while accepting the amount of bribe. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the complaint is of the applicant demanding bribe for giving a report for mutation of names of the original complainant and his brothers. The records show that the report was given by the applicant on 17.6.2022 on the basis of which an order was passed on 15.7.2022 by Tehsildar concerned directing mutation of names. The applicant is said to have demanded Rs.15,000/- which was the alleged bribe money on 24.7.2022 which is after about one month and 09 days of the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar concerned. 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- Pramod Dixit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and the other should be 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 :- 14.12.2022 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.12.16 13:54:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad