High Court · 2025

3. As per prosecution case in brief, on 22.08.2023 some altercation took place between Tushar Bhati S/o Sunil Kumar, Mayank S/o Sanju Singh, Ayush and Vishal S/o of Smt. Kusum Singh and Karan S/o Bhura. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023 two constables, namely, Sonu Baliyan (applicant) and Pushpendra Rathi went to village Ajay Nagar and told the complainants that on 22.08.2023 some altercation took place between their sons. Thereafter, in the intervening night of 24/25.08.2023, when Smt. Kusum Singh was alone in her house, Constable Sonu Baliyan, Constable Pushpendra Rathi and Sub-Inspector Dheeraj Rathi along with other police personnel barged into her house without any search warrant and mounted pressure upon her to pay a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- to make compromise in the matter and accordingly they adopting different modus operandi extracted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each from all the four complainants. On the complaint of the complainants, Circle OfÏcer, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar was directed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar to make inquiry in the matter, who, after a detailed inquiry, submitted a report mentioning, inter alia, that a video with regard to the incident in question was also provided to him and on going through the same he came to the conclusion that allegations against Constable Sonu Baliyan and Constable Pushpendra Rathi for extracting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainants are found correct and he recommended for lodging F.I.R. Accordingly, the First Information Report has been lodged on 01.09.2023 against the applicant and co-accused Pushpendra Rathi for the alleged offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged after detailed inquiry conducted by Circle OfÏcer, Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahar in which applicant Sonu Baliyan and co-accused Pushpendra were found guilty for extracted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant whereas after culmination of investigation no charge sheet has been submitted against co-accused Pushpendra and he has been exonerated and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant on the basis of alleged video whereas there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, hence the genuineness of the said video is also doubtful and cannot be taken into consideration in absence of required certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is not a trap case and applicant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2024, but despite submission of charge sheet and issuance of several summons, the complainant has not appeared for getting his statement recorded. Hence there is no possibility of conclusion of trial of the applicant in near future. It is also submitted that the applicant has already suspended from his service and he has no criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that charge sheet has been submitted in this case on 08.06.2024 and charge was framed on 23.10.2024 and thereafter, 06.11.2024, 18.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 13.12.2024, 24.12.2024, 02.01.2025, 15.01.2025, 31.01.2025, 14.02.2025, 27.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 08.04.2025 and 22.04.2025 were the dates fixed before the trial court, but the complainant did not appear for getting his statement recorded. As such it is apparent on record that the trial of the applicant is being delayed by the prosecution adopting different modus operandi.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and stage of trial of the applicant as noted above, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Sonu Baliyan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. As per prosecution case in brief, on 22.08.2023 some altercation took place between Tushar Bhati S/o Sunil Kumar, Mayank S/o Sanju Singh, Ayush and Vishal S/o of Smt. Kusum Singh and Karan S/o Bhura. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023 two constables, namely, Sonu Baliyan (applicant) and Pushpendra Rathi went to village Ajay Nagar and told the complainants that on 22.08.2023 some altercation took place between their sons. Thereafter, in the intervening night of 24/25.08.2023, when Smt. Kusum Singh was alone in her house, Constable Sonu Baliyan, Constable Pushpendra Rathi and Sub-Inspector Dheeraj Rathi along with other police personnel barged into her house without any search warrant and mounted pressure upon her to pay a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- to make compromise in the matter and accordingly they adopting different modus operandi extracted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each from all the four complainants. On the complaint of the complainants, Circle OfÏcer, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar was directed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar to make inquiry in the matter, who, after a detailed inquiry, submitted a report mentioning, inter alia, that a video with regard to the incident in question was also provided to him and on going through the same he came to the conclusion that allegations against Constable Sonu Baliyan and Constable Pushpendra Rathi for extracting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainants are found correct and he recommended for lodging F.I.R. Accordingly, the First Information Report has been lodged on 01.09.2023 against the applicant and co-accused Pushpendra Rathi for the alleged offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged after detailed inquiry conducted by Circle OfÏcer, Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahar in which applicant Sonu Baliyan and co-accused Pushpendra were found guilty for extracted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant whereas after culmination of investigation no charge sheet has been submitted against co-accused Pushpendra and he has been exonerated and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant on the basis of alleged video whereas there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, hence the genuineness of the said video is also doubtful and cannot be taken into consideration in absence of required certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is not a trap case and applicant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2024, but despite submission of charge sheet and issuance of several summons, the complainant has not appeared for getting his statement recorded. Hence there is no possibility of conclusion of trial of the applicant in near future. It is also submitted that the applicant has already suspended from his service and he has no criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that charge sheet has been submitted in this case on 08.06.2024 and charge was framed on 23.10.2024 and thereafter, 06.11.2024, 18.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 13.12.2024, 24.12.2024, 02.01.2025, 15.01.2025, 31.01.2025, 14.02.2025, 27.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 08.04.2025 and 22.04.2025 were the dates fixed before the trial court, but the complainant did not appear for getting his statement recorded. As such it is apparent on record that the trial of the applicant is being delayed by the prosecution adopting different modus operandi.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and stage of trial of the applicant as noted above, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Sonu Baliyan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad