High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Shoaib Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava,Ravindra Singh,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant-Shoaib Alam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2024, under Sections 386, 392 of I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Qwarsi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Amir lodged a first information report on 29.06.2024 against Constable Veeresh and Constable Shoaib Alam (applicant) for the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. making allegations inter alia that in September, 2023, some persons were apprehended in an incident of loot of Rs. 2,71,000/- in Bhujpura, in which name of complainant's brother came into light in the statement of one arrested person, namely, Shakeel. On 05.10.2023 police personnel and applicant-Shoaib came to his house and took his both the brothers to police station, but on 06.10.2023 after taking Rs. 1,00,000/- let them off. One Zaid, brother-in-law (Sala) of complainant's brother was also taken away by the police, who was later on let off by applicant-Shoaib after taking Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is further alleged in the FIR that the police personnel used to call him at police station and demand certain articles and thereafter let him off. Veeresh and Shoaib told him to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise they will send him to jail in a false case showing recovery of pistol from his possession. The complainant after borrowing Rs. 30,000/- from his friend has given the same to them. Being angry with the non-payment of full amount, they called him and after keeping him in the lockup, got him beaten by the prisoners and on 12.10.2023 challaned him. Applicant Shoaib has also broken complainant's finger. On 17.10.2023, they took his brother Sajid from Sahaswan and told him that either he will be killed or his nail will be pulled out. On making request, Veeresh demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-. Any how he made arrangement of Rs. 70,000/- and gave it to Veeresh. On the next day Shoaib demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- for letting his brother off. He gave Rs. 2,50,000/- to Shoaib, but his brother was not released. Thereafter he received a call from S.I. Kasana, who asked him to talk to S.H.O. When he went to meet him in police station, S.H.O. demanded Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter on 20.10.2023 at about 11:30 A.M. he gave Rs. 50,000/- to Veeresh but he took out Rs. 12,000/- from it and showed a recovery of Rs. 38,000/-. Thereafter they used to make undue demand from him. In March 2024, Shoaib demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- by saying that he will get the case under the Gangsters Act withdrawn. On 07.03.2024 he got a call from Veeresh, who demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- for the construction of roof of his house. On refusing to fulfill the illegal demand, they extended threat. Thereafter he extracted Rs. 28,000/- for repair of his house and also taken Rs. 20,000/-. As such he has given about Rs. 10-12 lakhs to the accused persons and he is under the constant threat of life.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, the alleged incident took place in September, 2023, whereas F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of eight months on 29.06.2024. It is next submitted that informant is an informer (mukhbir) of the police and he used to help the police in arresting criminals of his area but informant's brother Sajid was involved in a case of robbery, regarding which F.I.R. was lodged at Case Crime No. 561 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh. When name of Sajid came into light in the said case, he absconded. Thereafter, the informant made pressure upon the applicant and co-accused to save his brother, but the applicant refused to extend any help in the said case, due to this reasons a false story has been set up to implicate the applicant in the instant case. It is further submitted that the informant has also made allegation that he was beaten in the lockup, but no injury report is available on record. False allegations have been levelled against the applicant for demanding and accepting bribe, whereas applicant has not taken any money from the informant. During course of investigation Section 392 I.P.C. was added on the allegation that the applicant has taken mobile phone from the house of the informant, whereas no such mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the applicant, but the same has been recovered from the possession of Kapil Dev Nayak who has not been made accused. The applicant has been made accused on the ground that as per CDR, location of mobile phones of the applicant, co-accused Veeresh and witness Waseem was found on same place. False allegation has been levelled that informant after withdrawing a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from his account on 01.11.2023 had given the same to the applicant. It is also submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. dated 29.6.2024 of this case, applicant has also been falsely implicated in another Case Crime No. 569 of 2024, under Section 351(3), 351(4), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Qwarsi, District Aligarh, in which applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 16.07.2024 by the trial court. Lastly it is submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is public servant. He along with co-accused by adopting different modus operandi extracted about Rs. 10-12 Lakhs from the informant under the threat of false implication of informant's brother in a informant criminal case. The informant, in his statement recorded during investigation, has supported the prosecution case. On demanding money by the applicant, compelling circumstances, withdrew a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from his bank account on 01.11.2023 and gave the same to the applicant. From the call details also it is clear that the accused persons made repeated calls to the informant making demand of bribe. Hence considering the gravity of offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 386 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, Section 392 I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act have also been added on the basis of material/evidence collected during investigation. From the CDR collected by the investigating ofÏcer, location of accused persons and informant at the time of withdrawing a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the bank was found at same place. Call details collected by the investigating ofÏcer indicate the prima facie substance in the prosecution case. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that informant was informer of the police is a matter of evidence, which requires proof in accordance with law before the trial court. As on date, I do not find good ground to presume the false implication of the applicant. The offence is heinous in nature.

7. Considering the nature of crime, material evidence on record, complicity of the applicant and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

9. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 3.4.2025/Kashifa

Applicant :- Shoaib Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava,Ravindra Singh,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant-Shoaib Alam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2024, under Sections 386, 392 of I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Qwarsi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Amir lodged a first information report on 29.06.2024 against Constable Veeresh and Constable Shoaib Alam (applicant) for the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. making allegations inter alia that in September, 2023, some persons were apprehended in an incident of loot of Rs. 2,71,000/- in Bhujpura, in which name of complainant's brother came into light in the statement of one arrested person, namely, Shakeel. On 05.10.2023 police personnel and applicant-Shoaib came to his house and took his both the brothers to police station, but on 06.10.2023 after taking Rs. 1,00,000/- let them off. One Zaid, brother-in-law (Sala) of complainant's brother was also taken away by the police, who was later on let off by applicant-Shoaib after taking Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is further alleged in the FIR that the police personnel used to call him at police station and demand certain articles and thereafter let him off. Veeresh and Shoaib told him to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise they will send him to jail in a false case showing recovery of pistol from his possession. The complainant after borrowing Rs. 30,000/- from his friend has given the same to them. Being angry with the non-payment of full amount, they called him and after keeping him in the lockup, got him beaten by the prisoners and on 12.10.2023 challaned him. Applicant Shoaib has also broken complainant's finger. On 17.10.2023, they took his brother Sajid from Sahaswan and told him that either he will be killed or his nail will be pulled out. On making request, Veeresh demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-. Any how he made arrangement of Rs. 70,000/- and gave it to Veeresh. On the next day Shoaib demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- for letting his brother off. He gave Rs. 2,50,000/- to Shoaib, but his brother was not released. Thereafter he received a call from S.I. Kasana, who asked him to talk to S.H.O. When he went to meet him in police station, S.H.O. demanded Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter on 20.10.2023 at about 11:30 A.M. he gave Rs. 50,000/- to Veeresh but he took out Rs. 12,000/- from it and showed a recovery of Rs. 38,000/-. Thereafter they used to make undue demand from him. In March 2024, Shoaib demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- by saying that he will get the case under the Gangsters Act withdrawn. On 07.03.2024 he got a call from Veeresh, who demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- for the construction of roof of his house. On refusing to fulfill the illegal demand, they extended threat. Thereafter he extracted Rs. 28,000/- for repair of his house and also taken Rs. 20,000/-. As such he has given about Rs. 10-12 lakhs to the accused persons and he is under the constant threat of life.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, the alleged incident took place in September, 2023, whereas F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of eight months on 29.06.2024. It is next submitted that informant is an informer (mukhbir) of the police and he used to help the police in arresting criminals of his area but informant's brother Sajid was involved in a case of robbery, regarding which F.I.R. was lodged at Case Crime No. 561 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh. When name of Sajid came into light in the said case, he absconded. Thereafter, the informant made pressure upon the applicant and co-accused to save his brother, but the applicant refused to extend any help in the said case, due to this reasons a false story has been set up to implicate the applicant in the instant case. It is further submitted that the informant has also made allegation that he was beaten in the lockup, but no injury report is available on record. False allegations have been levelled against the applicant for demanding and accepting bribe, whereas applicant has not taken any money from the informant. During course of investigation Section 392 I.P.C. was added on the allegation that the applicant has taken mobile phone from the house of the informant, whereas no such mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the applicant, but the same has been recovered from the possession of Kapil Dev Nayak who has not been made accused. The applicant has been made accused on the ground that as per CDR, location of mobile phones of the applicant, co-accused Veeresh and witness Waseem was found on same place. False allegation has been levelled that informant after withdrawing a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from his account on 01.11.2023 had given the same to the applicant. It is also submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. dated 29.6.2024 of this case, applicant has also been falsely implicated in another Case Crime No. 569 of 2024, under Section 351(3), 351(4), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Qwarsi, District Aligarh, in which applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 16.07.2024 by the trial court. Lastly it is submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is public servant. He along with co-accused by adopting different modus operandi extracted about Rs. 10-12 Lakhs from the informant under the threat of false implication of informant's brother in a informant criminal case. The informant, in his statement recorded during investigation, has supported the prosecution case. On demanding money by the applicant, compelling circumstances, withdrew a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from his bank account on 01.11.2023 and gave the same to the applicant. From the call details also it is clear that the accused persons made repeated calls to the informant making demand of bribe. Hence considering the gravity of offence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 386 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, Section 392 I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act have also been added on the basis of material/evidence collected during investigation. From the CDR collected by the investigating ofÏcer, location of accused persons and informant at the time of withdrawing a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the bank was found at same place. Call details collected by the investigating ofÏcer indicate the prima facie substance in the prosecution case. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that informant was informer of the police is a matter of evidence, which requires proof in accordance with law before the trial court. As on date, I do not find good ground to presume the false implication of the applicant. The offence is heinous in nature.

7. Considering the nature of crime, material evidence on record, complicity of the applicant and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

9. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 3.4.2025/Kashifa