Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Ajay Mishra – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 15014 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Rishad Murtaza, Aishwarya Mishra, Syed Ali Jafar Rizvi
For the Opposite Party : Anurag Kumar Singh, Ashmita Singh
The court emphasized the importance of timely FIR lodging, consistency in complainant statements, and the need for prima facie evidence in granting bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 342, 386, 504, 506, 411, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7A and 8
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is seeking bail in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant claims to have been falsely implicated and argues that the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the complainant's statements undermine the allegations against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, and the applicant's explanations for the alleged transactions. It also noted that the main accused had not been taken into custody and that the investigation had been transferred to the C.B.I. The court found the case prima facie false and misconceived as far as the present applicant is concerned, and granted bail.
Issues: The issues revolve around the credibility of the allegations, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicant's involvement in the alleged transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, the lack of custody of the main accused, and the prima facie falsity and misconceived nature of the case against the present applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to cooperate with the C.B.I. in the investigation and abide by specific conditions upon release.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and Ms. Ashmita Singh, who has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the informant/complainant.
2. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 30.10.2022 in case Crime No. 310 of 2022 u/s 342, 386, 504, 506, 411, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Indira Nagar, District Lucknow and also in added section i.e. Section 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R.
3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. which initially registered under Section 342, 386, 504, 506 and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation by the investigating agency i.e. STF (at that point of time) Section 411, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. have been added. Recently, section 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act have also been added.
4. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has stated that at the time of lodging F.I.R. the informant/complainant could have levelled allegation against the present applicant and co-accused Mr Vinay Pathak, under those sections which have been added subsequently but since the allegation of F.I.R. were false and misconceived at the very inception, therefore, the allegation relating to the subsequent section i.e. section 411,409,420,468,471 I.P.C. have not been levelled against the present applicant. During the course of the investigation one person in the name of Sri Ajay Jain has been arrested in the present crime case. Since the informant/complainant was having business relation with Sri Ajay Jain and on account of the alleged fraudulent act of the informant one F.I.R. bearing No 0778 of 2022 u/s 420 and 406, P.S:-Neemrana, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan has been lodged by the brother of Sri Ajay Jain against the informant/complainant (Annexure No.9).
5. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has stated that the informant/complainant has not disclosed the reason of inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. as the informant could have lodged his F.I.R. in the month of February, 2022 when the accused person has asked him for commission for making payment of the bill of the informant/complainant. Further, in the month of April, 2022 when the accused persons have allegedly again asked for commission for subsequent bills and the informant has allegedly made the payment of such commission on 29.04.2022 but no F.I.R. has been lodged. Further, in the month of September, 2022 when the accused persons have allegedly demanded commission for making payment of his subsequent bills. As per F.I.R., the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged when the accused no. 1 Sri Vinay Pathak has allegedly threatened the informant to make payment of commission of his bill which has to be paid otherwise the work contract shall be given to the firm of the present applicant, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.10.2022. At this stage Sri Rishad Murtaza, has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No. S.A. 1 of the supplementary affidavit which has Work Order being given to the firm of the present applicant on 15.09.2022. Therefore, he has submitted that if the Work Order has already been given to the firm of the applicant on 15.09.2022, there was no occasion or the reason for the informant/complainant to make payment of commission to the Vice Chancellor of the University through the present applicant in the month of October, 2022.
6. As per Sri Murtaza, the unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. does not only vitiates the allegations but also it is violative of section 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988 which mandates that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage.
7. Sri Rishad Murtaza has drawn a
