Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Jhillu Ram - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24676 of 2024
Decided On : 23-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : D.M.Tripathi
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

The absence of direct evidence of conspiracy and the applicant's clean antecedents justified the granting of bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:(A) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b), 13(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Bail application - Applicant, a Sub Inspector, accused of demanding bribe of Rs. 20,000/- - No recovery of bribe from applicant - Clean antecedents and period of incarceration considered - Court finds no direct evidence of conspiracy or basis for demand - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court must assess the nature and gravity of the offence, the status of the accused, and the evidence available at the stage of bail application. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of demanding a bribe while working as a Sub Inspector in U.P. Police, with a complaint leading to a police trap that caught a co-accused with the bribe money. The applicant claims he was falsely implicated and has no prior criminal history.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant has undergone significant incarceration, the police report has been submitted, and there is no direct evidence of conspiracy against him.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence available.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy and the applicant's clean antecedents warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a basis for the alleged demand.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. D.M. Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Jhillu Ram, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in the year, 2018) and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station-Anti Corruption Varanasi, District-Varanasi during the pendency of trial.

5. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 2.5.2024, a delayed FIR dated 3.5.2024 was lodged by first informant-Rakesh Bahadur Singh, Incharge, Trap Team, Varanasi and was registered as Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in the year, 2018) and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station-Anti Corruption Varanasi, District-Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, 2 persons namely (1) Suryaprakash and (2) Jhillu Ram have been nominated as named accused.

6. The prosecution story as is discernible from the FIR is to the effect that applicant is working as Sub Inspector in U.P. Police. The complainant Jay Shankar had made an application before the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police alleging therein that on account of conduct of the tenure holder, whose tenure is adjacent to the land of the complainant, the complainant is unable to construct his house. On this application, the present applicant was required to submit a report. It is alleged by the complainant that applicant demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, a police trap was laid on 2.5.2024 and co-accused Suryaprakash was caught red handed with cash worth Rs. 20,000/- (bribe money) in the denomination of Rs. 5,00/- currency notes. The result of the chemical test qua the recovery so made from the person of aforesaid accused is also against aforesaid accused.

7. After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of both the named accused is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report on 26.6.2024 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby both the named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station-Anti Corruption Varanasi, District-Varanasi.

8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. With reference to the material on record, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the requisite police report as was required to be submitted by applicant had already been submitted on 19.4.2024 i.e. prior to the date of complaint made by complainant. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that there is no basis for the demand alleged to have been made by the applicant. Once there is no basis of demand, therefore, no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed by applicant. On the above premise, it is thus urged that the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 OnLine SC 1724, is fully attracted in favour of applicant. Furthermore, the recovery of the bribe money has not been made from the person of applicant. Applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 120-B IPC i.e. conspiracy. According to the learned counsel for applicant, conspiracy is a closed door affair and therefore, subject to trial evidence. However, even from the circumstances that have emerged during the course of investigation, no in