The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs Here it would also be apposite to mention the observations made

In nutshell, facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 12.05.2021 against the applicant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act making allegation inter alia that the applicant has been posted in Joint Hospital, Sashastra Seema Bal, Gorakhpur since 2016. In the year 2017, the department got an information regarding taking of bribe from the candidates of the Constable (Driver) recruitment to get them passed in the medical examination. On making inquiry from the candidates, they have accepted the said facts of giving bribe and also said that conversation in this regard is available in their mobile phone. Thereafter said mobile phone was seized and vigilance enquiry was initiated, which was completed on 12.09.2018 and accordingly Directorate of Vigilance ordered for Court of Inquiry on 05.04.2019. Forensic examination of alleged conversation was also done and report of COI dated 29.11.2019 was submitted, in which sufÏcient evidence was found against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with regard to incident of the year 2017, F.I.R. was lodged after much delay on 12.05.2021. No trial proceeding can be initiated after a lapse of three years. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false and based on concocted facts. No incriminating material has been found from the possession of the applicant. Investigating ofÏcer has not conducted fair investigation. No offence is made out against the applicant. When police sent a notice to department of the applicant seeking permission to arrest the applicant, then he moved this anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating ofÏcer after due investigation submitted charge- sheet dated 20.10.2024 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. It is also pointed out that during investigation, applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11588 of 2024 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.07.2024. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, refusal of anticipatory bail in an appropriate case does not amount to denial of rights conferred upon applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no exceptional ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant. Hence, the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that charge-sheet has been filed after required sanction by the authority concerned and on the charge-sheet, the concerned Court has taken cognizance. F.I.R. has been lodged after preliminary enquiry as mentioned in F.I.R. As on date, I do not find any material on record to give any finding that applicant has been falsely implicated. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, (2022) 17 SCC 391 has held that while considering anticipatory bail, the nature of offence should be looked into alongwith the severity of the punishment. It is also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Here it would also be apposite to mention the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the criteria for considering anticipatory bail in the matters relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are as under:- "21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: "28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." (Emphasis supplied)

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant-accused of indulging in corruption." Object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the fact that after investigation charge has been submitted against the applicant, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Learned concerned Court below while considering regular bail application of the applicant shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

In nutshell, facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 12.05.2021 against the applicant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act making allegation inter alia that the applicant has been posted in Joint Hospital, Sashastra Seema Bal, Gorakhpur since 2016. In the year 2017, the department got an information regarding taking of bribe from the candidates of the Constable (Driver) recruitment to get them passed in the medical examination. On making inquiry from the candidates, they have accepted the said facts of giving bribe and also said that conversation in this regard is available in their mobile phone. Thereafter said mobile phone was seized and vigilance enquiry was initiated, which was completed on 12.09.2018 and accordingly Directorate of Vigilance ordered for Court of Inquiry on 05.04.2019. Forensic examination of alleged conversation was also done and report of COI dated 29.11.2019 was submitted, in which sufÏcient evidence was found against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that with regard to incident of the year 2017, F.I.R. was lodged after much delay on 12.05.2021. No trial proceeding can be initiated after a lapse of three years. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false and based on concocted facts. No incriminating material has been found from the possession of the applicant. Investigating ofÏcer has not conducted fair investigation. No offence is made out against the applicant. When police sent a notice to department of the applicant seeking permission to arrest the applicant, then he moved this anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating ofÏcer after due investigation submitted charge- sheet dated 20.10.2024 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. It is also pointed out that during investigation, applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11588 of 2024 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.07.2024. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, refusal of anticipatory bail in an appropriate case does not amount to denial of rights conferred upon applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no exceptional ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant. Hence, the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that charge-sheet has been filed after required sanction by the authority concerned and on the charge-sheet, the concerned Court has taken cognizance. F.I.R. has been lodged after preliminary enquiry as mentioned in F.I.R. As on date, I do not find any material on record to give any finding that applicant has been falsely implicated. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, (2022) 17 SCC 391 has held that while considering anticipatory bail, the nature of offence should be looked into alongwith the severity of the punishment. It is also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Here it would also be apposite to mention the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the criteria for considering anticipatory bail in the matters relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are as under:- "21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: "28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." (Emphasis supplied)

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant-accused of indulging in corruption." Object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the fact that after investigation charge has been submitted against the applicant, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Learned concerned Court below while considering regular bail application of the applicant shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad