Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Shakeel Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal misc. Bail application No. - 10409 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.7
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.303(2), S.317(2)
MINES AND MINERALS ACT : S.21, S.4
PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT : S.3
Headnote
(B) Fair Investigation - The court emphasized the necessity for an impartial investigation and noted the failure of the investigating officer to verify the applicant's involvement. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Bail Grant - The applicant was granted bail based on the prima facie case established and the nature of the allegations. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- for not naming the complainant as an accused in an ongoing investigation. The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and had not conducted any investigation in the related case. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant did not conduct the investigation and that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations against him. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant was involved in the alleged bribery and whether the investigation was conducted fairly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the applicant did not conduct the investigation, the basis for the bribery allegation was questionable, warranting the granting of bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Bail application allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Saurabh Sachan, Shubham
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of bribery against the applicant. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense arguments against the allegations. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on investigation irregularities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. granting bail based on prima facie case. (Para 10) |
| 5. conditions for bail and directives for police conduct. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the applicant-Shakeel Ahmad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Mirzapur, District Mirzapur during the pendency of trial.
3. As per the prosecution case in brief, the complainant- Pramod Kumar Singh made a complaint dated 20.02.2025 to the Inspector Vinay Singh, Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur making allegations inter alia that on 09.01.2025, a first information report was lodged by Mr. Deepak Kumar Rajbhar at Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of B.N.S., Section 4/21 MINES AND MINERALS ACT and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against unknown person, in which applicant-Shakeel Ahmad was the investigating officer, who demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from complainant-Pramod Kumar Singh for not revealing his name as an accused in that case but the matter was settled for Rs. 5,000/-. F.I.R. further alleges that taking cognizance of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted for prima facie satisfaction to proceed further in the matter. On being satisfied with the opinion given in the enquiry report, a trap team was constituted to catch the applicant red handed while accepting bribe. Accordingly the trap team along with independent witnesses and complainant proceeded to the designated place to execute the trap proceeding. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant took out the treated bribe notes Rs.5000/- from his pocket and gave to the applicant. The moment the applicant accepted bribe, the trap team nabbed him red handed. Thereafter Mr. Inspector Vinay Singh, Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur got a first information report lodged in the matter on 22.02.2025.
4. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
i. The applicant was not the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 8 of 2025, therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to make any demand of bribe as alleged in the F.I.R.dated 22.02.2025.
ii. No date and place of alleged demand of bribe by the applicant has been disclosed by the complainant.
iii. The F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 8 of 2025 was registered on 09.01.2025 and investigation of the said case was handed over to Mr. Mahendra Ram Bharti.
iv. Thereafter In-Charge Inspector, P.S. Jigana, District Mirzapur passed an order dated 10.01.2025, whereby he allotted further investigation of Case Crime No. 08 of 2025 to the applicant (S.I. Shakeel Ahmad). Since the applicant was assigned duty in Mahakumbh, 2025, therefore he was unable to conduct the investigation. Accordingly, he did not conduct any investigation of the said case and earlier investigating officer, Mr. Mahendra Ram Bharti has prepared the Case Diary No. 3 dated 11.01.2025.
v. On the strength of aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.
vi. It is also pointed out that vide order of this Court dated 15.04.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Organization, Varanasi was directed to ensure the production of the complainant before the trial court for recording his statement, but the same has also not been done as the concerned trial court is running vacant.
vii. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2025, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. In ord
