Jairani and Others v. Gaon Sabha and Others, wherein, the present

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024, in case crime no. 0018 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Anti- Corruption Lucknow District ACO, Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty has stated that this a false trap case, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated by the complainant having ulterior motive. The present applicant is serving on the post of Revenue Inspector at Tehsil Hasanganj District Unnao. There was one suit under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code which was pending consideration before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao under the title of Smt Ramkali @ Jairani and Others Vs. Gaon Sabha and Others, wherein, the present applicant had submitted his report on 26.04.2024 against those persons who have illegally encroached the land of Smt Ramkali, the petitioner. The aforesaid report relating to the boundary mark have been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hasanganj Unnao. Sri Chakravarty has stated that along with the aforesaid report, the present applicant has filed the spot map showing the illegal encroachment being done by the other side. The other side filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 08.04.2024, challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23.09.2024 and no interim order has been granted by the appellate Court. Since, the illegal encroacher was aggrieved from the report of the present applicant, therefore, he made complaint against the present applicant to the effect that he is demanding bribe and as per the story which has been cooked up with the help of police team, the present applicant was arrested, allegedly, red-handed, however, the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 500/- X 10 notes) have been recovered from the floor outside the house but the exercise of hand wash was carried out illegally, wherein, the red color was found in the hand of the present applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant could have not changed his earlier report as much as it has already been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and against that order, the appeal was pending, therefore, there was no question of demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. Only Rs. 5,000/- has been recovered, therefore, if the present applicant had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, he must have taken the said amount, not Rs. 5000/- which has allegedly been recovered. Besides, the offence under which the charge-sheet has been filed are having punishment up to seven years and triable by Special Court. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and his entire service record is unblemished. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant has been trapped and arrested red-handed and sum of Rs. 5000/- has been recovered from the floor outside his house as he has thrown such amount on the floor when the trap team tried to arrest him. Therefore, this bail application may be rejected. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2024 with no previous criminal history; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anil Pandey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024, in case crime no. 0018 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Anti- Corruption Lucknow District ACO, Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty has stated that this a false trap case, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated by the complainant having ulterior motive. The present applicant is serving on the post of Revenue Inspector at Tehsil Hasanganj District Unnao. There was one suit under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code which was pending consideration before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Unnao under the title of Smt Ramkali @ Jairani and Others Vs. Gaon Sabha and Others, wherein, the present applicant had submitted his report on 26.04.2024 against those persons who have illegally encroached the land of Smt Ramkali, the petitioner. The aforesaid report relating to the boundary mark have been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hasanganj Unnao. Sri Chakravarty has stated that along with the aforesaid report, the present applicant has filed the spot map showing the illegal encroachment being done by the other side. The other side filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 08.04.2024, challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23.09.2024 and no interim order has been granted by the appellate Court. Since, the illegal encroacher was aggrieved from the report of the present applicant, therefore, he made complaint against the present applicant to the effect that he is demanding bribe and as per the story which has been cooked up with the help of police team, the present applicant was arrested, allegedly, red-handed, however, the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 500/- X 10 notes) have been recovered from the floor outside the house but the exercise of hand wash was carried out illegally, wherein, the red color was found in the hand of the present applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant could have not changed his earlier report as much as it has already been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and against that order, the appeal was pending, therefore, there was no question of demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. Only Rs. 5,000/- has been recovered, therefore, if the present applicant had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, he must have taken the said amount, not Rs. 5000/- which has allegedly been recovered. Besides, the offence under which the charge-sheet has been filed are having punishment up to seven years and triable by Special Court. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and his entire service record is unblemished. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant has been trapped and arrested red-handed and sum of Rs. 5000/- has been recovered from the floor outside his house as he has thrown such amount on the floor when the trap team tried to arrest him. Therefore, this bail application may be rejected. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2024 with no previous criminal history; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anil Pandey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench