Prachand Pratap Singh and two others v. State of U.P. and two others) before this Court in which vide the order

1. Heard Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. These two anticipatory bail applications are connected together as they are of co-accused persons and arising out of the same case crime number. The matters are thus being decided by this common order.

3. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024, at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by Naveen Kumar Srivastava against Sub-Inspector Alok Singh, Prince Srivastava and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening collects money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 lakh and was coming with a bag wherein at about 06:00 a.m. he and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were stopped by Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 lakh in the same, on which there was some commotion and then Sub Inspector took the money from him and told that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 lakh. He then pleaded that the money is his and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. They then contacted him where the accused were present after which they were threatened and Sub Inspector told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them. They returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they came to the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are not named in the first information report. It is submitted that the first information report was lodged against Inspector Alok Singh Chowki Prabhari, Beniganj and Prince Srivastava along with 2-3 other companions. It is submitted that the implication of the applicants in the present matter has surfaced during investigation. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet dated 5.6.2024 has been submitted against Alok Kumar Singh, Prince Srivastava, Mukesh Kumar (applicant), Prachand Pratap Singh and Vishal Tiwari (applicant) under Sections 406, 420, 506, 389, 120B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on which the court concerned has taken cognizance vide the order dated 7.6.2024 and summoned the applicants and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that the summoning of the applicants in the present matter is under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120B IPC. It is further submitted that although during investigation some communication was found by the investigation officer to be between the applicants and co-accused persons but the same was not incriminating. It is submitted that the applicants have no bad antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicants and co-accused Prachand Pratap Singh filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6664 of 2024 (Prachand Pratap Singh and two others Vs. State of U.P. and two others) before this Court in which vide the order dated 27.4.2024 the petitioners were granted stay of their arrest. It is further submitted that the applicants be thus granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and the present application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the present anticipatory bail application and submitted that although the applicants were not named in the first information report but there was a reference that apart from the two named accused persons there were 2-3 other persons accompanying them. It is submitted that during investigation the names of the applicants surfaced in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and specific roles were assigned to them, the statement of the first informant has been placed before the Court which is annexed with the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that the bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court vide the order dated 3.9.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 and further the bail of co-accused Alok Singh has been rejected by this Court vide the order dated 2.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25998 of 2024. It is submitted that looking to the nature of incident, the gravity of offence and the quantum of money involved and also the fact that specific role has been assigned to the applicants in the statement of the first informant and now even during investigation their complicity has surfaced and charge sheet has been submitted against them on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and further that after issuance of summons on 07.06.2024 the applicants have been avoiding the process of law and Court and have not yet appeared before it. The present anticipatory bail be dismissed.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicants are not named in the first information report but their is a reference of 2-3 persons accompanying the named accused persons as accused in it. Thereafter immediately in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the applicants are named and specific roles have been assigned to them. The matter is serious in nature. It involves huge amount of money. Bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.) vide the order dated 3.9.2024. The said order reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Prince Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Section(s) 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur.

4. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024, at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by Naveen Kumar Srivastava against Sub-Inspector Alok Singh, Prince Srivastava (the present applicant) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening collects money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 lakh and was coming with a bag wherein at about 06:00 a.m. he and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were stopped by Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 lakh in the same, on which there was some commotion and then Sub Inspector took the money from him and told that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 lakh. He then pleaded that the money is his and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. They then contacted him where the applicant was also present after which they were threatened and Sub Inspector told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them. They returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they came to the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged money but he has been implicated in the matter on the basis of information given by the police informer. It is submitted that the alleged money shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is a totally false recovery. The applicant is not a police personnnel. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law, paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested and Rs.14 lakh was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that at the time of arrest of the applicant, Sub Inspector Alok Singh was also arrested and Rs.30 lakh was also recovered from his possession. It is submitted that even the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the present case and such no ground for bail in his favour is made out.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The first informant and his brother were carrying money which they had collected out of their business which was detained by Sub Inspector Alok Singh who is a co-accused in presence of the applicant who then tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by Sub-Inspector and the first informant was told to come on the next day. On the next day the money was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by Sub Inspector and the applicant. Subsequently on 09.4.2024 on the information of police informer Sub Inspector Alok Singh and the applicant were apprehended and from possession of Alok Singh Rs.30 lakh was recovered whereas from possession of the applicant Rs.14 lakh was recovered. The recovery is of huge amount of money. Implication and false recovery of such huge amount is not possible. There is no credible explanation from the side of the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered from his possession.

8. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence and the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

7. The bail of co-accused Alok Singh has been rejected by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25998 of 2024 (Alok Singh Vs State of U.P.) vide the order dated 2.12.2024. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Alok Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

3. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024 at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by original complainant Naveen Kumar Srivastava against the applicant Alok Singh (Sub-Inspector), Prince Srivastava (co-accused) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening he used to collect money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 Lakhs and when he along with his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were coming with a bag at about 06:00 a.m., they were stopped by applicant Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes, who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 Lakhs in the same, on which there was some commotion and then the applicant took the money from him and told him that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 Lakhs. He then pleaded that the money belongs to him and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. The co-accused Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. Thereafter, on the next day they contacted him where the co-accused Prince Srivastava was also present after which they were threatened and the applicant told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them whereupon, they returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they went to the police station and made a complaint requesting that report be lodged and action be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a Sub-Inspector in the police department and was performing his duties with utmost sincerity. During the period of election, when the Code of Conduct was implemented in the course of which, he checked the first informant and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava and recovered Rs.30 Lakhs from the first informant. It is submitted that the money was returned on the third day of its recovery after being satisfied regarding the same to be of the informant. It is further submitted that C.D.R. of the applicant, the first informant Naveen Kumar Srivastava and brother of first informant Gagan Kumar Srivastava would go to show that on 03.04.2024 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., they were shown at different locations and as such the story that the applicant stopped them and then took money from them is false. It is submitted while placing the statement of the first informant that the story as narrated by him is concocted story without any credible support. It is further submitted that the recovery of money has been shown at 6:00 p.m. but the C.D.R. would show all the said three persons to be at different locations. It is submitted that the service provider of mobile of the said three persons is the same as has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer while noting the certificate under the Evidence Act in the case diary. It is submitted that as such no offence is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 27 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in the mater. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested and Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that at the time of arrest of the applicant, co-accused Prince Srivastava was also apprehended and Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that the recovery was done on 09.04.2024. It is submitted that the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is further submitted that the recovery of Rs.30 Lakhs which is huge amount has not been explained by the applicant. He further submitted that insofar as the C.D.R. of the applicant and that of Gagan Kumar Srivastava is concerned, the same would go to show that at the time of incident, they were at the same place. It is further submitted that the C.D.R. although goes to show the location of the mobile but since the waves cross each-other it cannot be conclusively established that persons were at the said place since a minor movement or deviation from one place to the other may change the tower location. It is submitted that bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered and has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the present matter and no such ground is pleaded and argued which would go in his favour for making out a case for bail and hence the bail application be rejected.

6. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The first informant Naveen Kumar Srivastava and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were carrying money, which they had collected out of their business which was detained by the applicant, in the presence of co-accused Prince Srivastava who tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by the applicant and the first informant was told to come on the next date. On the next date, the money was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by the applicant and the co-accused. Subsequently, on 09.04.2024 on the information of police informer, the applicant and the co-accused Prince Srivastava were apprehended and from the possession of the applicant Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered whereas from the possession of co-accused Prince Srivastava Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered. The recovery is of a huge amount and planting this huge amount for false implication, is not possible. No reason whatsoever has been shown for false implication of the applicant. There is no explanation at all coming from the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered from his possession. The bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered. Insofar as, the location from the C.D.R. is concerned, the same is matter of trial which is to be looked into and considered by the trial court after evidence is recorded and the accused leads his defence for the same.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant and the fact that bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is rejected."

8. Looking to the nature of the incident, the gravity of the offence, the involvement of the applicants, the quantum of money involved and the avoidance of court subsequent to issuance of summons by the applicants, the present case does not call for any interference.

9. The present anticipatory bail applications are rejected. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Kumar Manish (Samit Gopal,J.) MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. These two anticipatory bail applications are connected together as they are of co-accused persons and arising out of the same case crime number. The matters are thus being decided by this common order.

3. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024, at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by Naveen Kumar Srivastava against Sub-Inspector Alok Singh, Prince Srivastava and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening collects money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 lakh and was coming with a bag wherein at about 06:00 a.m. he and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were stopped by Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 lakh in the same, on which there was some commotion and then Sub Inspector took the money from him and told that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 lakh. He then pleaded that the money is his and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. They then contacted him where the accused were present after which they were threatened and Sub Inspector told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them. They returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they came to the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are not named in the first information report. It is submitted that the first information report was lodged against Inspector Alok Singh Chowki Prabhari, Beniganj and Prince Srivastava along with 2-3 other companions. It is submitted that the implication of the applicants in the present matter has surfaced during investigation. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet dated 5.6.2024 has been submitted against Alok Kumar Singh, Prince Srivastava, Mukesh Kumar (applicant), Prachand Pratap Singh and Vishal Tiwari (applicant) under Sections 406, 420, 506, 389, 120B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on which the court concerned has taken cognizance vide the order dated 7.6.2024 and summoned the applicants and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that the summoning of the applicants in the present matter is under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120B IPC. It is further submitted that although during investigation some communication was found by the investigation officer to be between the applicants and co-accused persons but the same was not incriminating. It is submitted that the applicants have no bad antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicants and co-accused Prachand Pratap Singh filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6664 of 2024 (Prachand Pratap Singh and two others Vs. State of U.P. and two others) before this Court in which vide the order dated 27.4.2024 the petitioners were granted stay of their arrest. It is further submitted that the applicants be thus granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and the present application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the present anticipatory bail application and submitted that although the applicants were not named in the first information report but there was a reference that apart from the two named accused persons there were 2-3 other persons accompanying them. It is submitted that during investigation the names of the applicants surfaced in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and specific roles were assigned to them, the statement of the first informant has been placed before the Court which is annexed with the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that the bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court vide the order dated 3.9.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 and further the bail of co-accused Alok Singh has been rejected by this Court vide the order dated 2.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25998 of 2024. It is submitted that looking to the nature of incident, the gravity of offence and the quantum of money involved and also the fact that specific role has been assigned to the applicants in the statement of the first informant and now even during investigation their complicity has surfaced and charge sheet has been submitted against them on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and further that after issuance of summons on 07.06.2024 the applicants have been avoiding the process of law and Court and have not yet appeared before it. The present anticipatory bail be dismissed.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicants are not named in the first information report but their is a reference of 2-3 persons accompanying the named accused persons as accused in it. Thereafter immediately in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the applicants are named and specific roles have been assigned to them. The matter is serious in nature. It involves huge amount of money. Bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.) vide the order dated 3.9.2024. The said order reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Prince Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Section(s) 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur.

4. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024, at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by Naveen Kumar Srivastava against Sub-Inspector Alok Singh, Prince Srivastava (the present applicant) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening collects money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 lakh and was coming with a bag wherein at about 06:00 a.m. he and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were stopped by Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 lakh in the same, on which there was some commotion and then Sub Inspector took the money from him and told that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 lakh. He then pleaded that the money is his and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. They then contacted him where the applicant was also present after which they were threatened and Sub Inspector told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them. They returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they came to the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged money but he has been implicated in the matter on the basis of information given by the police informer. It is submitted that the alleged money shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is a totally false recovery. The applicant is not a police personnnel. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law, paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested and Rs.14 lakh was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that at the time of arrest of the applicant, Sub Inspector Alok Singh was also arrested and Rs.30 lakh was also recovered from his possession. It is submitted that even the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the present case and such no ground for bail in his favour is made out.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The first informant and his brother were carrying money which they had collected out of their business which was detained by Sub Inspector Alok Singh who is a co-accused in presence of the applicant who then tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by Sub-Inspector and the first informant was told to come on the next day. On the next day the money was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by Sub Inspector and the applicant. Subsequently on 09.4.2024 on the information of police informer Sub Inspector Alok Singh and the applicant were apprehended and from possession of Alok Singh Rs.30 lakh was recovered whereas from possession of the applicant Rs.14 lakh was recovered. The recovery is of huge amount of money. Implication and false recovery of such huge amount is not possible. There is no credible explanation from the side of the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered from his possession.

8. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence and the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

7. The bail of co-accused Alok Singh has been rejected by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25998 of 2024 (Alok Singh Vs State of U.P.) vide the order dated 2.12.2024. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Alok Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

3. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024 at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by original complainant Naveen Kumar Srivastava against the applicant Alok Singh (Sub-Inspector), Prince Srivastava (co-accused) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening he used to collect money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 Lakhs and when he along with his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were coming with a bag at about 06:00 a.m., they were stopped by applicant Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes, who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 Lakhs in the same, on which there was some commotion and then the applicant took the money from him and told him that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 Lakhs. He then pleaded that the money belongs to him and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. The co-accused Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. Thereafter, on the next day they contacted him where the co-accused Prince Srivastava was also present after which they were threatened and the applicant told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them whereupon, they returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they went to the police station and made a complaint requesting that report be lodged and action be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a Sub-Inspector in the police department and was performing his duties with utmost sincerity. During the period of election, when the Code of Conduct was implemented in the course of which, he checked the first informant and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava and recovered Rs.30 Lakhs from the first informant. It is submitted that the money was returned on the third day of its recovery after being satisfied regarding the same to be of the informant. It is further submitted that C.D.R. of the applicant, the first informant Naveen Kumar Srivastava and brother of first informant Gagan Kumar Srivastava would go to show that on 03.04.2024 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., they were shown at different locations and as such the story that the applicant stopped them and then took money from them is false. It is submitted while placing the statement of the first informant that the story as narrated by him is concocted story without any credible support. It is further submitted that the recovery of money has been shown at 6:00 p.m. but the C.D.R. would show all the said three persons to be at different locations. It is submitted that the service provider of mobile of the said three persons is the same as has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer while noting the certificate under the Evidence Act in the case diary. It is submitted that as such no offence is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 27 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in the mater. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested and Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that at the time of arrest of the applicant, co-accused Prince Srivastava was also apprehended and Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that the recovery was done on 09.04.2024. It is submitted that the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is further submitted that the recovery of Rs.30 Lakhs which is huge amount has not been explained by the applicant. He further submitted that insofar as the C.D.R. of the applicant and that of Gagan Kumar Srivastava is concerned, the same would go to show that at the time of incident, they were at the same place. It is further submitted that the C.D.R. although goes to show the location of the mobile but since the waves cross each-other it cannot be conclusively established that persons were at the said place since a minor movement or deviation from one place to the other may change the tower location. It is submitted that bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered and has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the present matter and no such ground is pleaded and argued which would go in his favour for making out a case for bail and hence the bail application be rejected.

6. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The first informant Naveen Kumar Srivastava and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were carrying money, which they had collected out of their business which was detained by the applicant, in the presence of co-accused Prince Srivastava who tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by the applicant and the first informant was told to come on the next date. On the next date, the money was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by the applicant and the co-accused. Subsequently, on 09.04.2024 on the information of police informer, the applicant and the co-accused Prince Srivastava were apprehended and from the possession of the applicant Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered whereas from the possession of co-accused Prince Srivastava Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered. The recovery is of a huge amount and planting this huge amount for false implication, is not possible. No reason whatsoever has been shown for false implication of the applicant. There is no explanation at all coming from the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered from his possession. The bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered. Insofar as, the location from the C.D.R. is concerned, the same is matter of trial which is to be looked into and considered by the trial court after evidence is recorded and the accused leads his defence for the same.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant and the fact that bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is rejected."

8. Looking to the nature of the incident, the gravity of the offence, the involvement of the applicants, the quantum of money involved and the avoidance of court subsequent to issuance of summons by the applicants, the present case does not call for any interference.

9. The present anticipatory bail applications are rejected. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Kumar Manish (Samit Gopal,J.) MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad