High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The present applicant is in jail since 28.03.2025, in FIR NO. RC 006 2025 A 0009 under Section 61(2) of BNS r/w Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at P.S. C.B.I/A.C.B. District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Sri Chakravarty has stated that the applicant has is a bank manager of Central Bank of India, Barabanki. Even as per the prosecution story, the present applicant has not allegedly demanded any bribe to sanction the loan. But such bribe has allegedly been demanded for disbursing the loan. Sri Chakravarty has stated that if the loan has already been sanctioned, then no bribe could have been asked for disbursing the loan inasmuch as in that case, the loanee has got the legal right to get the loan sanctioned.

5. Precisely, Shri Chakravarthy has drawn attention of the court towards paragraph 4 of the bail application which reached as under :- "4. That in the present case Firstly, there is No Actual direct delivery of Money by the Complainant i.e. Gurpreet Singh to the applicant nor the delivery ever happened between Saurabh Verma (Direct Selling Agent) to the present applicant, Secondly, there is no Call Recording or message which could directly demonstrate the demand of the bribe amount by the applicant before the false trap of Saurabh Verma, Thirdly, no money or anything incriminating have been recovered from the house of the applicant during the search by the CBI. Fourthly, When the applicant was intercepted by the CBI team in his Bank office where he was doing his work there was no delivery of the alleged bribe and nothing has been recovered from the applicant, Fifthly, the loan of Rs 20,00,000/- was already sanctioned by the applicant on dated 19.03.2025, Importantly Rs 10,00,000/- the first part of the loan amount was disbursed by the applicant on 26.03.2025 itself therefore there was no occasion or any reason to demand any bribe from the complainant. Sixthly, the allegation of conspiracy and offence of 61(2) B.N.S in the absence of the direct evidence of demand by the applicant from the complainant will not be made out."

6. Shri Chakravarty has stated that the charge-sheet has already been filed and exercise of getting sanction is underway, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering evidence or influencing the witnesses.

7. Shri Chakravarty has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, and he being a bank manager would not be absconded from the trial proceeding, rather he undertakes that he shall corporate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

8. Per contra, Sri Aakash Prasad has vehemently opposed the bail application and has drawn attention of this Court towards various paragraphs of counter affidavit, wherein, the culpability has been shown. Sri Akash Prasad has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and sanction has not been granted as yet, but the present applicant being a bank manager would have not asked the bribe to disburse the loan. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

9. 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 28.03.2025; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Rohan Kumar, 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/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The present applicant is in jail since 28.03.2025, in FIR NO. RC 006 2025 A 0009 under Section 61(2) of BNS r/w Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at P.S. C.B.I/A.C.B. District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Sri Chakravarty has stated that the applicant has is a bank manager of Central Bank of India, Barabanki. Even as per the prosecution story, the present applicant has not allegedly demanded any bribe to sanction the loan. But such bribe has allegedly been demanded for disbursing the loan. Sri Chakravarty has stated that if the loan has already been sanctioned, then no bribe could have been asked for disbursing the loan inasmuch as in that case, the loanee has got the legal right to get the loan sanctioned.

5. Precisely, Shri Chakravarthy has drawn attention of the court towards paragraph 4 of the bail application which reached as under :- "4. That in the present case Firstly, there is No Actual direct delivery of Money by the Complainant i.e. Gurpreet Singh to the applicant nor the delivery ever happened between Saurabh Verma (Direct Selling Agent) to the present applicant, Secondly, there is no Call Recording or message which could directly demonstrate the demand of the bribe amount by the applicant before the false trap of Saurabh Verma, Thirdly, no money or anything incriminating have been recovered from the house of the applicant during the search by the CBI. Fourthly, When the applicant was intercepted by the CBI team in his Bank office where he was doing his work there was no delivery of the alleged bribe and nothing has been recovered from the applicant, Fifthly, the loan of Rs 20,00,000/- was already sanctioned by the applicant on dated 19.03.2025, Importantly Rs 10,00,000/- the first part of the loan amount was disbursed by the applicant on 26.03.2025 itself therefore there was no occasion or any reason to demand any bribe from the complainant. Sixthly, the allegation of conspiracy and offence of 61(2) B.N.S in the absence of the direct evidence of demand by the applicant from the complainant will not be made out."

6. Shri Chakravarty has stated that the charge-sheet has already been filed and exercise of getting sanction is underway, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering evidence or influencing the witnesses.

7. Shri Chakravarty has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, and he being a bank manager would not be absconded from the trial proceeding, rather he undertakes that he shall corporate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

8. Per contra, Sri Aakash Prasad has vehemently opposed the bail application and has drawn attention of this Court towards various paragraphs of counter affidavit, wherein, the culpability has been shown. Sri Akash Prasad has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and sanction has not been granted as yet, but the present applicant being a bank manager would have not asked the bribe to disburse the loan. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

9. 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 28.03.2025; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Rohan Kumar, 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/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench