High Court · 2025
Case Details
Prosecution case in a nutshell is that the applicant, who is the Investigating Officer of a case arising out of dispute between Sheelm Singh and Babloo Gautam and others, demanded bribe for exonerating the name of the complainant from the investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to allegation in the prosecution case, the Hundai Grand i10 of applicant is already parked at the alleged place of recovery, one person in khaki pant and jacket was standing near the car. It is also alleged that informant went to that person, had a conversation with that person and asked the complainant to move forward. It is further alleged that the complainant took out bribe amount from his left pocket of jacket and afforded to the applicant, at this point of time, trap team intercepted however, the applicant had already thrown currency notes on the ground which was recovered by trap team. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has never demanded or accepted any bribe. No videography of the trap proceedings as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been made however, videography of the applicant's arrest and recovery has been done. There is no compliance of Section 105 BNSS. He also submits that earlier an F.I.R. No.312/2024 dated
18.12.2024 was registered at P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow. The said F.I.R. was being investigated by the applicant and complicity of the complainant was found. All the offences were punishable up to seven years, therefore, there was no apprehension of arrest for the complainant. Being the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid F.I.R. No.312/2024, victim's statements were recorded and charge-sheet was forwarded to the superior officer on 23.01.2025 including complainant Abhishek Kumar Gautam. He submits that this F.I.R. has been lodged on account of grudge of the complainant against whom charge-sheet was filed by the applicant. The story cooked up in the prosecution case that bribe was taken on
24.01.2025 is falsified with the fact that on one day prior to this i.e. on 23.01.2025, charge-sheet was forwarded to the Circle Officer. No work was pending with the applicant thus, he had become functus officio and, therefore, no interference in the investigation could have been made by him. There is no demand of acceptance or recovery from the applicant although his hands has been forcibly turned into pink on account of being apprehended by the team and the complainant. Maximum punishment under Section 7 of the PC Act is seven years. The applicant has unblemished record, he has no criminal history. He is ready to file sureties. The charge-sheet has already been filed. The cognizance has been taken on 21.03.2025. No purpose will be served in keeping the applicant in custody. There is no flight risk for the applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.01.2025. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and have submitted that applicant has been caught red handed. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, maximum punishment under Section 7 of the PC Act is only seven years coupled with the fact that applicant has no criminal history so also the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Bechan Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 269 of BNS. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails 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 209 BNS. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV SAURABH YADAV SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Prosecution case in a nutshell is that the applicant, who is the Investigating Officer of a case arising out of dispute between Sheelm Singh and Babloo Gautam and others, demanded bribe for exonerating the name of the complainant from the investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to allegation in the prosecution case, the Hundai Grand i10 of applicant is already parked at the alleged place of recovery, one person in khaki pant and jacket was standing near the car. It is also alleged that informant went to that person, had a conversation with that person and asked the complainant to move forward. It is further alleged that the complainant took out bribe amount from his left pocket of jacket and afforded to the applicant, at this point of time, trap team intercepted however, the applicant had already thrown currency notes on the ground which was recovered by trap team. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has never demanded or accepted any bribe. No videography of the trap proceedings as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been made however, videography of the applicant's arrest and recovery has been done. There is no compliance of Section 105 BNSS. He also submits that earlier an F.I.R. No.312/2024 dated
18.12.2024 was registered at P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow. The said F.I.R. was being investigated by the applicant and complicity of the complainant was found. All the offences were punishable up to seven years, therefore, there was no apprehension of arrest for the complainant. Being the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid F.I.R. No.312/2024, victim's statements were recorded and charge-sheet was forwarded to the superior officer on 23.01.2025 including complainant Abhishek Kumar Gautam. He submits that this F.I.R. has been lodged on account of grudge of the complainant against whom charge-sheet was filed by the applicant. The story cooked up in the prosecution case that bribe was taken on
24.01.2025 is falsified with the fact that on one day prior to this i.e. on 23.01.2025, charge-sheet was forwarded to the Circle Officer. No work was pending with the applicant thus, he had become functus officio and, therefore, no interference in the investigation could have been made by him. There is no demand of acceptance or recovery from the applicant although his hands has been forcibly turned into pink on account of being apprehended by the team and the complainant. Maximum punishment under Section 7 of the PC Act is seven years. The applicant has unblemished record, he has no criminal history. He is ready to file sureties. The charge-sheet has already been filed. The cognizance has been taken on 21.03.2025. No purpose will be served in keeping the applicant in custody. There is no flight risk for the applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.01.2025. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and have submitted that applicant has been caught red handed. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, maximum punishment under Section 7 of the PC Act is only seven years coupled with the fact that applicant has no criminal history so also the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Bechan Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 269 of BNS. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails 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 209 BNS. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV SAURABH YADAV SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench