High Court · 2025

1. On 23.04.2025, a direction was given to the trial court to record the statement of the complainant after framing charges against the applicant but it reflects that as court is vacant, therefore, order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court could not be complied with.

2. In view of the above, the matter is being heard on merits.

3. Heard Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2024, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the Revenue Inspector and as per allegations, he made demand of bribe from complainant for demarcation of his property and was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from him but entire allegation is totally false.

6. He further submits that actually, complainant wanted that applicant should take his favour but when applicant refused to do his help against the law then he became highly annoyed and, thereafter, he implicated the applicant in the present case in connivance with the trap team. He further submits that investigation of the case has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed and from the charge-sheet which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application it reflects that Investigating Officer of the case was Sri Omprakash Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Department and, therefore, entire investigation is tainted and has been conducted without any authority as according to Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter related to Prevention of Corruption Act, the investigation can only be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

7. He further submits that apart from the present case, applicant was made accused in three other criminal cases but in two cases after investigation, he has been exonerated and remaining one case relates to minor offence. He next submits that maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 02.07.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was public servant and he misused his post and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from complainant but he could not dispute the fact that as per Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintended of Police but in the present matter investigation has been conducted by an Inspector who was below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and there is no Government Notification on record which authorizes him to conduct the investigation.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail for last more than a year.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegations, applicant being Revenue Inspector made a demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/- from complainant for demarcation of his property and, thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from him but it reflects that after investigation charge- sheet has been submitted and from perusal of the charge-sheet, it reflects that Investigating Officer of the case was Sri Omprakash Singh who was Inspector in the Vigilance Department, therefore, prima facie, it reflects that investigation of the case has been conducted in violation of the provision of Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as according to this provision, the matter under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, as per proviso clause even an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent can conduct the investigation in such matters but not without Government Notification and in the case at hand, there is no Government Notification on the basis of which Inspector Vigilance was authorized to conduct the investigation.

12. Further, charge-sheet against the applicant has been filed for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and it appears that he is in jail with regard to the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant was also made accused in three other criminal cases but in two cases after investigation he has been exonerated and remaining one case relates to minor offence.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant - Brijbali Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. On 23.04.2025, a direction was given to the trial court to record the statement of the complainant after framing charges against the applicant but it reflects that as court is vacant, therefore, order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court could not be complied with.

2. In view of the above, the matter is being heard on merits.

3. Heard Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2024, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the Revenue Inspector and as per allegations, he made demand of bribe from complainant for demarcation of his property and was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from him but entire allegation is totally false.

6. He further submits that actually, complainant wanted that applicant should take his favour but when applicant refused to do his help against the law then he became highly annoyed and, thereafter, he implicated the applicant in the present case in connivance with the trap team. He further submits that investigation of the case has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed and from the charge-sheet which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application it reflects that Investigating Officer of the case was Sri Omprakash Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Department and, therefore, entire investigation is tainted and has been conducted without any authority as according to Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter related to Prevention of Corruption Act, the investigation can only be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

7. He further submits that apart from the present case, applicant was made accused in three other criminal cases but in two cases after investigation, he has been exonerated and remaining one case relates to minor offence. He next submits that maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 02.07.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was public servant and he misused his post and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from complainant but he could not dispute the fact that as per Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintended of Police but in the present matter investigation has been conducted by an Inspector who was below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and there is no Government Notification on record which authorizes him to conduct the investigation.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail for last more than a year.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegations, applicant being Revenue Inspector made a demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/- from complainant for demarcation of his property and, thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.15,000/- from him but it reflects that after investigation charge- sheet has been submitted and from perusal of the charge-sheet, it reflects that Investigating Officer of the case was Sri Omprakash Singh who was Inspector in the Vigilance Department, therefore, prima facie, it reflects that investigation of the case has been conducted in violation of the provision of Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as according to this provision, the matter under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, as per proviso clause even an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent can conduct the investigation in such matters but not without Government Notification and in the case at hand, there is no Government Notification on the basis of which Inspector Vigilance was authorized to conduct the investigation.

12. Further, charge-sheet against the applicant has been filed for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and it appears that he is in jail with regard to the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant was also made accused in three other criminal cases but in two cases after investigation he has been exonerated and remaining one case relates to minor offence.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant - Brijbali Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad