Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2493 (ALL)

KRISHNA GOPAL GUPTA v. STATE O

2007-09-28

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2007
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by Krishna Gopal Gupta with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 250 of 2007 under section 7/13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Sri K. P. Singh, Inspector U. P. Vigilance Sector Agra on 4. 7. 2007 at 12. 15 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4. 7. 2007 at about 8. 15 p. m. It is alleged that on 27. 6. 2007 one Sanjay Kumar moved an application before the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Sector, Agra alleging therein that he had applied for drug licence for medicines M/s. M. C. Medical Store. He also submitted requisite documents alongwith the statement and deposit of the licence fee also. He handed over all the documents to the applicant on 1. 6. 2007 who inspected his shop and demanded Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. Ultimately, the amount of bribe was settled to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on 27. 6. 2007. Sanjay Kumar again met with the applicant who insisted for Rs. 10,000/-and told him that if he fails to pay, the licence wound not be issued. A date 4. 7. 2007 for handing over the aforesaid amount was fixed. The S. P. vigilance Agra directed the first informant for preliminary inquiry after that permission was sought from the Government of U. P. for laying the trap. Thereafter, the trap party was constituted, which was headed by the first informant. After completing the pre trap formalities on 4. 7. 2007 the applicant was trapped at the residence at 8. 15 a. m. he was apprehended and Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant in. the presence of the witnesses, who were provided by the District Magistrate, Agra. Thereafter the present case was registered. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge/incharge Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Meerut, who rejected the same on 1. 7. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 17. 7. 2007, the present application has been filed by the applicant before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. 4. 7. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 17. 7. 2007, the present application has been filed by the applicant before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an gazetted officer of the Government of U. P. , on the day of the alleged incident he was inspector of drugs, Agra where he was posted since March, 2005. The service record of the applicant is above board. He never committed any irregularity in discharge of his official duties. Since he was continuing complaining about the illegal business of drugs in district Agra, particularly sale of the drugs and medicines pertaining to the Government hospital by the drugs mafia on account of having excellent service career, the applicant was posted there, to control the same. The C. M. O. Agra sent letter dated 2. 9. 2005, to the applicant having some instruction to take all possible steps against such licence holder of drug/medicines, which have been involved in irregular, illegal business on 29. 5. 2007, there was a raid at the premises of one Laxmi Chand where huge quantity of drugs having the Government supply was recovered, its storage was absolutely illegal. Laxmi Chand was the owner of Sonu Medical Agency. The said firm was possessing the whole sale licence No. 223/20b/99/and 223/21b/99. The applicant made a recommendation for cancelling the said licence and have lodged the F. I. R. against Laxmi Chand. The firm known as Kaleshwari Medical Store run by Manoj Goel, was also inspected by the raiding party where huge quantity spurious Drugs/medicines belonging to he Government Supply of Delhi and U. P. , the expired medicines and injection were recovered, consequently, Manish Goel was arrested and a case was registered against him, his case crime Nos. 106 of 2007 and 107 of 2007 P. S. Kotwali district Agra. The applicant and other Drugs Inspector Jagbir wrote a letter dated 1. 6. 2007 to the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare Agra to provide protection that they were having apprehension to their life. 106 of 2007 and 107 of 2007 P. S. Kotwali district Agra. The applicant and other Drugs Inspector Jagbir wrote a letter dated 1. 6. 2007 to the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare Agra to provide protection that they were having apprehension to their life. In fact, regular illegal drugs/medicines transaction is being manage by the organized gang in connivance of some officials of the department of drugs for a long time, suspicion was raised against one Shiv Kant Dixit, a lower division clerk in the C. M. O. Office Agra for the last 20 years. After enquiry the order for deputing senior person of the department, not below the rank of senior Assistant for discharging his duty as a Drugs Clerk, was passed, even then Shivkant Dixit did not left the work of Drug Clerk Agra by manipulating and managing the affairs and in spite of persuasions by one D. C. Upadhyay who was posted as Senior Division Clerk he had not been assigned the duty of the Drugs Clerk in utter violation of the guidelines fixed by the department. Shivkant Dixit was continuously discharging his dunes as Drug Clerk. In that post also one K. R. Raman, has taken extensive steps in discouraging the illegal activities of the Drugs Mafia, was also trapped through vigilance department in which an F. I. R. with the allegation of accepting bribe, was lodged against him. In furtherance of the trap raid conspiracy, the proceedings of the trap has been laid down and the applicant has been involved falsely whereas he was not accepting the amount of bribe. 5. It is further contended that the C. M. O. Agra has written a D. O. to S. P. Vigilance Agra on 10. 7. 2007 that no application for issuance of licence of Sanjay Kumar has been received by the office, in such situation, there was no occasion for taking the bribe and the trap has not been properly done, the witness are highly interested and there is no witness to support the story of trap. The applicant is an innocent officer. He is having a good service carrier. He may not be released on bail. He is in jail since 5. 7. 2007. 6. The applicant is an innocent officer. He is having a good service carrier. He may not be released on bail. He is in jail since 5. 7. 2007. 6. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. that in the present case even according to the prosecution version the application for issuing a licence was given to the applicant in the office of the C. M. O. in which requisite licence fee was also deposited by the complainant Sanjay Kumar. The applicant was arrested by the raiding party and from his possession the currency notes, which were signed by the first informant pre trap have been recovered. The hands of the applicant were washed by sodium carbonate which became pink. There is no illegality in the proceeding of trap. There is no reason of false implication of the applicant and there is no active involvement of Shiv Kant Dixit clerk in the C. M. O. officer. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant was posted as a Drug Inspector and the trap has been laid by the vigilance department after completing the pre trap formalities. The allegation of accepting the bribe is very serious allegation. Due to involvement of the Government officials in accepting the illegal gratification or bribe, the role of law is shaken and confidence of common person has been eroded on the governance and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .