✦ High Court of India · 19 Dec 2025

Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj(Arrayed As Manoj Bhardwaj Pto Lko. In Fir) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy

Case Details High Court of India · 19 Dec 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

19 Dec 2025

Bench

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR

Length

5,660 words

Acts & Sections

A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988 A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 Code of Criminal Procedure §438 Constitution of India Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act 1988 PC Act 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

Cited in this judgment

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been registered in a casual and mechanical manner. Although the prosecution alleges the involvement of one Diwan Girijesh, a subordinate officer working under the applicant, who is posted as Passenger Tax Officer in the Transport Department, Lucknow, the FIR does not assign any specific role or overt act to the applicant. The FIR has been lodged solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused, without any independent material against the applicant. No direct or role is assigned to the applicant, and even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against him. The essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS are absent. There is no material to suggest any entrustment of property to the applicant in his capacity as a public servant, and therefore, no question arises of dishonest misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that verbatim FIRs have been registered by the Special Task Force in several districts against officers of the Transport Department on identical allegations; however, in all such cases, the offences invoked are punishable only up to seven years. In contrast, in the present case, being Crime No. 660 of 2025, the applicant has been selectively proceeded against by additionally invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which is punishable with life imprisonment, without any supporting material on record. It is contended that the said provision has been mechanically and arbitrarily applied merely to enhance the gravity of the offence, which suggests that the applicant is being differently treated by the STF in this case. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to various orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 11138 of 2025, 11793 of 2025, and 11103 of 2025, wherein the writ petitions filed by the accused persons were disposed of in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, as the offences in those cases were punishable up to seven years. However, without assigning any reason, the present FIR has been lodged by 3 NABAIL No. 2029 of 2025 additionally invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which is punishable with life imprisonment. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a government officer, and is due to retire in the year 2026. He has an unblemished service record and undertakes to cooperate with investigation as and when required. It is also submitted that the applicant is presently on medical leave, and any inability of the police to obtain his residential address from departmental records cannot be construed as the department shielding him or acting in collusion. No accommodation has been provided to the applicant, and the absence of residential details in departmental records ought not to be treated as a circumstance adverse to him, but rather as a compelling reason to protect his liberty so that he may assist the investigation without apprehension of arrest. Learned counsel further submits that no offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. Although these offences are punishable up to seven years, there is no allegation of any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the applicant from any transporter, truck driver, or intermediary. There is also no allegation that the applicant aided, abetted, instigated, or conspired in the demand or acceptance of any undue advantage. Shri J.S. Tomar, learned AGA, opposed the submissions. It is submitted that a network of the officers of the Transport Department in collusion with the local brokers and truck drivers is operating throughout the State. The independent witness Ashutosh Dubey has alleged the complicity of the applicant along with co-accused persons. It is submitted that it is very rare to have such an independent witness in cases of such magnitude. During arguments learned AGA has provided extract of the photocopies of the case diary in support of his contentions. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR could not have been registered under Section 316(5) BNS is concerned, the same is patently misconceived, inasmuch as the applicant is a public servant entrusted with a public office. The allegations are that the applicant, by indulging in commission of offence alleged offence, has betrayed the trust reposed in him with regard to his office. The provision deals with the 4 NABAIL No. 2029 of 2025 betrayal of trust concerning property with harsher penalties for those holding positions of grater responsibilities in public office. Upon perusal of the record and the extract of case diary placed by the learned AGA, it prima facie emerges that in the present case the complainant seized a truck bearing registration No. UP78TD7880. From the said truck, the named accused Kapil produced a weighbridge slip reflecting a gross weight of 44,370 kg. However, subsequent to the arrest and recovery, the overloaded morang truck was re-weighed at a weighbridge, where its weight was found to be 66,340 kg. Thus, prima facie, it is alleged that overloaded trucks were being cleared pursuant to a criminal conspiracy by deliberately showing lesser weight, thereby causing loss to the State revenue. The independent witness Ashutosh Dubey, in his statement, has duly corroborated the prosecution version. From the co-accused Abhinav Pandey, a mobile phone was recovered and three copies of screenshots of chat conversations were seized, which reveal facts relating to the plying of overloaded vehicles. These chats have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The co-accused Rajiv Kumar Bansal was found to had have a telephonic conversion with the applicant Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj on 211 occasions between 15.06.2025 to 12.11.2025. The applicant was also in conversion with another co-accused Anuj Kumar (subordinate Diwan of Rajiv Kumar Bansal) on 292 occasions, while telephonic conversations between the applicant Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj and co-accused Girijesh (subordinate of the applicant) took place on 289 occasions. It further shows that co-accused Ritesh Kumar Pandey @ Shanu was also in conversation with co-accused Anuj Nishad. Co-accused Girijesh was found to be in active communication with co-accused Abhinav Pandey, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Ritesh Kumar Pandey @ Shanu, Manoj Bhardwaj, and Anuj Kumar Nishad. While rejecting the applicant’s anticipatory bail application, the learned Trial Court observed that it was highly surprising that the applicant, who was posted as a Passenger Tax Officer in the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, had, vide letter dated 19.11.2025, informed Investigating Officer that no permanent or temporary address of the applicant was available and, therefore, the same could not be provided. The 5 NABAIL No. 2029 of 2025 learned Trial Court expressed astonishment that despite the fact that the co- accused Rajiv Kumar Bansal is an ARTO and the applicant is a PTO, both holding responsible positions, their address details were not available in the records of the Transport Department which prima facie shows that the aforesaid syndicate/network is so powerful that even the Investigating Officer was denied access to the applicant’s address. The relevant observations of the learned Trial Court are extracted below: "्ऺस्तुत भामले में उ्तर ्ऺदेश एस०टी०एफ० की यह सूचना ्ऺाप्त होने पर िक उ्तर ्ऺदेश की िविभन्न जनपदों में पिरवहन िवभाग यो अिधकािरयों की िमली भगत से ओवरलोड वाहनों से गोरंग व िग्टी आिद का पिरवहन कराकर सरकार को राजस्व की ्षित पहुंचायी जा रही है, के आधार पर एस०टी०एफ० की टीम ्षारा िदनाक 11.11.2025 को खचरी गौड से सीतापुर की ओर जाते हुए ़्ेजा गाठी नं० यू०पी० 32 एम०पू० 3139 के पाहन चालक अिभनव पांडे को पकड़ा गया िजसने पूछताछ में यह बताया िक यह उसका सगा भाई िरतेश कु मार आर०टी०ओ० व पी०टी०ओ० अिधकारी व उनके अिधनस्थों से िमली भगत कर िविभन्न ्षांसपोटर् व डम्पर मािलको से संपकर् कर िग्टी व मोरंग की ओवरलोड पिरवहन कराकर धनाजर्न करते है। िजसमें ्ऺित इक पांच से छः हजार रूपये ्ऺित इक उन अिधकािरयों का पहुंचा देते है तथा सात हजार रूपये ्ऺित इक मािलकों व दांसपोटर् से लेते है। उसने यह भी बताया िक इसी कम ने आज रात में गाडी नं० यू०पी० १६ बी०टी० 7880 ओवरलोड मोरंग लेकर आई०आई०एम० ितराहे के पास आने वाला है। उ्व सूचना के आधार पर आई०आई०एम० ितराहे के पास रात एक बजे उपरो्व ढक ओवरलोिडग सिहत उसके चालक किपल पु्ऴ पन्ना लाल के साथ पकडा गया। ढक चालक ने पूछताछ में बताया िक उसका ओवरलोडेड वाहन हमीरपुर की खदान से उ्तर ्ऺदेश के िविभन्न जनपदों में चलता है तथा इक के मािलकों ने उसे बताया है िक उसने हमीरपुर से लखनऊ पूवा्लचल तक आर०टी०ओ० िवभाग के कमर्चािरयों व अिधकािरयों को दलालों के माध्यम से पैसे देकर सैट कर रखा है। आज रास्ते में भी उसको कई अिधकारी िमले लेिकन पूवर् में सेंिटग होने के कारण िकसी में उसे रास्ते में पकड़ा नहीं।

7. अिभयु्व अिभनय पांडे ने पूछताछ में यह भी बताया िक वह वतर्मान में लखनऊ जनपद में ओवरलोडेड वाहन चलाने के िलये पूवर् में आर०टी०ओ० के िनजी जाइयर रहे िवनोद यादव व ए०आ०टी०ओ० लखनऊ राजू बसल के अधीनस्थ दीवान अनुज पी०टी०ओ० लखनऊ ्शी मनोज भार्षाज के अधीनस्थ ्शी बृजेश, को टक/डम्परों की सूची व ्ऺित एक 5500 रूपये ्ऺितमाह देकर ओवरलोड वाहनों को लखनऊ में बेरोकटोक चलाते है तथा अन्य जनपदों में भी इसी तरह के ्ऺाइवेट लोग िरश्यत देकर संिटग कर रखे है। अिभयु्व अिभनय पांडे के कब्जे से बरामद मोबाइल फोन में वाह्सअप ्षुप स्वीय पाया गया िजसमें िविभन्न गािडयों के लोके शन क्लीयरेंस व आिडयों व टैस्ट मेसेज सेंड िकया गया था तथा उसकी गाड़ी की तलाशी लेने पर गाढी में कु छ ढायचे व नोटबुक बशनद हुये िजसमें िविभन्न ओवरलोड वाहनों के िनधांद पिरवहन हेतु ली गयी व दी गयी धनरािश का संपूणर् िववरण अंिकत है। िजसे कब्जा पुिलस में िलया गया।

8. ्ऺस्तुत मानले की ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् िदनांक 12.11.2025 को दजर् की गयी है। िजसकी िववेचना अभी ्ऺारंिभक स्तर पर है। ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक ओवरलोडेड वाहनों के पिरवहन का एक ्िापक िसिडके ट व नेटवकर् पूरे उ्तर ्ऺदेश में संगिठत रूप से सि्वय होकर कायर् कर रहा है िजसमें पिरवहन िवभाग के अिधकािरयों व कमर्चािरयों की संिलप्तता िदखायी पड़ती है। एस०टी०एफ० की दोन ्षारा िजस ओपरलोडेड डम्पर को पकड़ा गया यह डम्पर हमीरपुर से मोरंग को लेकर चला था तथा उसका गंत्ि कु शीनगर था तथा वह बेरोकटोक लखनऊ पहुंच गया था। पुनः अिभयु्व अिभनव पांडे के पास से बरामद नोटबुक व अन्य साम्षीयों के अवलोकन से भी स्प्ि है िक िवना पिरवहन िवभाग के उच्चािधकािरयों के िमलीभगत एवं सहयोग के उपरो्व िसिडके ट / नेटवकर् बेरोकटोक रूप से कायर् नहीं कर सकता। 6 NABAIL No. 2029 of 2025

9. के स डायरी के पचार् नं० 5 के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक िववेचक ्षारा कायार्लय सहायक संभागीय इकाई शासन, लखनऊ से ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में वांिछत ए०आर०टी०ओ० लखनऊ राजीव कु मार बंसल, पी०टी०ओ० मनोज कु मार भार्षाज आिद के संबंध में उनके अस्थायी व स्थायी पते के संबंध में सूचना मांगी गयी थी तो सहायक संभागीय पिरवहन अिधकारी (्ऺशासन) लखनऊ ्षारा अपन प्ऴ िदनांिकत 19.11.2025 के माध्यम से यह सूचना ्ऺदान की गयी थी िक उपरो्व अिधकारी उनके कायार्लय में कायर्रत है परन्तु इनकी मूल तेवा पुिस्तका एवं ्िि्वगत प्ऴावली कायार्लय पिरवहन आयु्व लखनऊ में होने के कारण तथा इस कायार्लय में इनके स्थायी व अस्थायी पते का कोई िववरण उपलब्ध न होने के कारण उनका अस्थायी या स्वादी पता िदया जाना संभव नहीं है।

10. यह अत्यंत ही आ्ायर्जनक एवं खेदजनक है िक उपरो्व ए०आर०टी०ओ० व पी०टी०ओ० िजस कायार्लय में कायर्रत है, उस कायार्लय में उनके स्थायी र अस्थायी प्ते का कोई िववरण उपलब्ध नहीं है। उनमें से एक राजीव कु मार बंसल ए०आर०टी०ओ० है, जो िक राजपि्ऴत बागवानी है तथा दूसरे मनोज कु मार मारहाण या्ऴी/माल कर अिधकारी के िजम्मेदार पद पर कायर्रत है। उनके लखनऊ िस्थत आवास की सूचना उनके वतर्मान िनयुि्व स्थल के कायार्लय के कायार्लय अध्य्ष से लेकर कायार्लय में कायर्रत िकसी ्िि्व के पास नहीं है। िजससे यह स्प्ितः पिरलि्षत होता है िक उपरोका िसिडके ट/नेटवकर् इस कदर मजबूत है िक पिरवहन िवभाग ्षारा इस संबंध में िववेचक ्षारा मांगी गयी वांछनीय सूचना को भी उपलब्ध नहीं करायी जा रहा है।

11. िववेचक ्षारा अपने ्ऺेिषत आख्या के पैरा नं0 38 में यह उिल्लिखत िकया गया है िक आवेदक/अिभयु्व के कायार्लय में वे उपिस्थत नहीं पाये गये है तथा अभी तक फरार चल रहे है। िजससे स्प्ि हैिक आवेदक /अिभयु्व ्षारा िववेचना में कोई सहयोग नहीं िकया जा रहा है। अतः इस स्तर पर उन्हें अि्षम जमानत ्ऺदान की जाती है तो उनके ्षारा िवरोचना को ्ऺभािवत िकये जाने की पूरी संभावना है। िजो 12 ्ऺस्तुत मामले में लगाये गये आरोपों की ्ऺकृ ित गंभीरता, पिरवहन िवभाग के अिधकािरयों के कमर्चािरयों की अपराध में सहभािगता, िववेचना के ्ऺारंिभक स्तर आिद को दृि्िगत रखते हुए अिभयु्व को अि्षम जमानत पर िरहा िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। अतः आवेदक/अिभयु्व का अि्षम जमानत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आवेश ्ऺाथर् / अिभयु्व मनोज कु मार नर्षाज का अि्षम जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िनरस्त िकया जाता है। आदेश की ्ऺितिलिप िजलािधकारी, लखनऊ को सहायक संभागीय पिरवहन अिधकारी (्ऺशासन), लखनऊ के उपरो्व आचरण को सं्ञान में लेने हेतु एवं ्ऺस्तुत मामले की िववेचना में अपेि्षत सहयोग हेतु आवेिशत करने हेतु ्ऺेिषत हो।" The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493, has held that actual exchange of bribe is not an essential requirement for prosecuting an accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the 1988 Act, respectively. ***** 7 NABAIL No. 2029 of 2025

17. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the other hand, Section 13 of the 1988 Act is with regard to criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act.

18. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia,

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988