Manoj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.)

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ayush Mishra,Grijesh Tiwari,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Manoj Kumar Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Sections 7/7A, 12, 13(1)(B), 13(2) of P.C. Act and Section 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Anti-Corruption Azamgarh, District Gorakhpur.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16549 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.).

5. The sole ground as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is in jail since 20.02.2024 and while placing paragraphs 25 to 30 of the affidavit it is submitted that there are 16 witnesses to be examined and till date no witness has been examined and keeping the applicant in jail further would not serve any purpose. It is submitted that the applicant be thus released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024. It is submitted that the gravity of the offence needs to be looked into as the present matter is of a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that time and again it has been held by the Apex Court that matters involving economic offence and monetary corruption should be dealt with by strong hands. It is submitted that as such merely on the ground of period of incarceration bail cannot be considered and granted.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024. The said order reads as under: "1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I 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 Manoj Kumar Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Sections 7/7A, 12, 13(1)(B), 13(2) of P.C. Act and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Azamgarh, District Gorakhpur.

3. The case of the prosecution is that an application dated 16.02.2024 was given by the original complainant Rajeev Kumar Singh on 19.02.2024 to the Anti-corruption Department alleging therein that he is the Manager of S.N. Public School, Mahro, Police Station Sikandarpur, Ballia and has applied for approval of his school through the online portal which was entrusted to the Block Education Officer and the Basic Siksha Adhikari after which the same was sent to the Additional Director Basic Siksha Adhikari wherein his office clerk concerned had made an objection on 10.01.2024 on it. He met the concerned clerk Manoj Srivastava who demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh and said that approval of his school will only be given when he gave bribe money. He states that he does not want to give bribe money and wants to get him arrested. On the said application enquiry was conducted and pre-trap proceedings were done subsequent to which a trap was laid on 19.02.2024 and the applicant was arrested accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. Arrest and recovery memo was prepared on the basis of which the present FIR has been lodged.

4. While placing para 16 of the affidavit it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was appointed as a Clerk-cum Computer Operator on temporary basis and is working as such. It is submitted that except for the arrest and recovery, the entire other proceedings allegedly after trap have been done at the police station and as such no sanctity can be given to the same. It is submitted that a meeting of the committee was held on 09.01.2024 for granting recognition to schools in which the school of the applicant was denied recognition since it did not fulfill to the parameters for it. It is submitted that the applicant was granted stay of arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3877 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) till the cognizance is taken on the police report by the court concerned. It is submitted that the applicant had no powers to grant approval to any school and the power vested with the concerned committee. It is further submitted that the work and post of the applicant have not been disputed in the counter affidavit of para 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 and is in jail since 20.02.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was arrested accepting bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that the applicant was the person who had made an objection in the application of the original complainant due to which his recommendation for his school was deferred. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the trap was a false trap. It is further submitted that the huge amount of Rs. 1 lakh has been recovered from the applicant.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was arrested for accepting bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh. In so far as the proceedings at the police station are concerned, the same would in no manner lead to a conclusion that the trap proceedings and the arrest are false and fabricated. The applicant was involved in processing of the form for recognition of the college of the original complainant in which he had made an objection. The order dated 02.04.2024 of the Division Bench is not of any help to the applicant as the said order stayed his arrest till cognizance on the police report is taken by the court concerned, but the facts of the case show that the applicant was already arrested in trap proceedings on 20.02.2024 and was in jail since then. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

7. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. The applicant was arrested accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. The matter relates to economic offence and is grievous in nature. The matter of bribe has to be dealt with strong hands. Merely by stating about the period of incarceration cannot be the sole ground for consideration of bail. No new ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. However, the applicant is the accused in the matter, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ayush Mishra,Grijesh Tiwari,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Manoj Kumar Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Sections 7/7A, 12, 13(1)(B), 13(2) of P.C. Act and Section 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Anti-Corruption Azamgarh, District Gorakhpur.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16549 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.).

5. The sole ground as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is in jail since 20.02.2024 and while placing paragraphs 25 to 30 of the affidavit it is submitted that there are 16 witnesses to be examined and till date no witness has been examined and keeping the applicant in jail further would not serve any purpose. It is submitted that the applicant be thus released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024. It is submitted that the gravity of the offence needs to be looked into as the present matter is of a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that time and again it has been held by the Apex Court that matters involving economic offence and monetary corruption should be dealt with by strong hands. It is submitted that as such merely on the ground of period of incarceration bail cannot be considered and granted.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024. The said order reads as under: "1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I 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 Manoj Kumar Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Sections 7/7A, 12, 13(1)(B), 13(2) of P.C. Act and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Azamgarh, District Gorakhpur.

3. The case of the prosecution is that an application dated 16.02.2024 was given by the original complainant Rajeev Kumar Singh on 19.02.2024 to the Anti-corruption Department alleging therein that he is the Manager of S.N. Public School, Mahro, Police Station Sikandarpur, Ballia and has applied for approval of his school through the online portal which was entrusted to the Block Education Officer and the Basic Siksha Adhikari after which the same was sent to the Additional Director Basic Siksha Adhikari wherein his office clerk concerned had made an objection on 10.01.2024 on it. He met the concerned clerk Manoj Srivastava who demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh and said that approval of his school will only be given when he gave bribe money. He states that he does not want to give bribe money and wants to get him arrested. On the said application enquiry was conducted and pre-trap proceedings were done subsequent to which a trap was laid on 19.02.2024 and the applicant was arrested accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. Arrest and recovery memo was prepared on the basis of which the present FIR has been lodged.

4. While placing para 16 of the affidavit it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was appointed as a Clerk-cum Computer Operator on temporary basis and is working as such. It is submitted that except for the arrest and recovery, the entire other proceedings allegedly after trap have been done at the police station and as such no sanctity can be given to the same. It is submitted that a meeting of the committee was held on 09.01.2024 for granting recognition to schools in which the school of the applicant was denied recognition since it did not fulfill to the parameters for it. It is submitted that the applicant was granted stay of arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3877 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) till the cognizance is taken on the police report by the court concerned. It is submitted that the applicant had no powers to grant approval to any school and the power vested with the concerned committee. It is further submitted that the work and post of the applicant have not been disputed in the counter affidavit of para 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 and is in jail since 20.02.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was arrested accepting bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that the applicant was the person who had made an objection in the application of the original complainant due to which his recommendation for his school was deferred. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the trap was a false trap. It is further submitted that the huge amount of Rs. 1 lakh has been recovered from the applicant.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was arrested for accepting bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh. In so far as the proceedings at the police station are concerned, the same would in no manner lead to a conclusion that the trap proceedings and the arrest are false and fabricated. The applicant was involved in processing of the form for recognition of the college of the original complainant in which he had made an objection. The order dated 02.04.2024 of the Division Bench is not of any help to the applicant as the said order stayed his arrest till cognizance on the police report is taken by the court concerned, but the facts of the case show that the applicant was already arrested in trap proceedings on 20.02.2024 and was in jail since then. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

7. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. The applicant was arrested accepting bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. The matter relates to economic offence and is grievous in nature. The matter of bribe has to be dealt with strong hands. Merely by stating about the period of incarceration cannot be the sole ground for consideration of bail. No new ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. However, the applicant is the accused in the matter, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad