Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1542 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Gaur v. State of U. P.

2024-06-10

SAMIT GOPAL

body2024
JUDGMENT Samit Gopal, J. List revised. 2. Heard Sri. Rajat Sonkar holding brief of Sri. Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. Shree Krishna Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Gaur, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.0002 of 2024, under Sections 7/7A, 12, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Azamgarh. 4. As per the prosecution case on the complaint dated 3.2.2024 of Suraj Pratap, the complainant, FIR was lodged on 6.2.2024 against Umesh Kumar Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Gaur and Hitendra Krishna alleging therein that the complainant was falsely implicated in a case of which FIR dated 26.11.2023 was lodged as Case Crime No.546 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 34 IPC at Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh which was being investigated by Hitesh Krishna, the Circle Officer. Umesh Kumar Yadav who was the reader of Circle Officer, made a demand of bribe of Rs. 15,000/- for getting the closure report submitted in favour of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is posted as Home Guard in the concerned police station. He although was arrested and the alleged money was recovered from his possession but the same was given to him on the saying of co-accused Umesh Kumar Yadav. It is argued that the applicant never demanded any money nor accepted any bribe money. It is argued that there was no occasion for the applicant to demand and receive any money as the matter was being investigated by the Circle Officer and the applicant being an Home Guard had no say in it. It is further argued that even otherwise the complainant was exonerated in the said matter on 25.1.2024 after his involvement was found to be false. It is further argued that co-accused Hitesh Krishna, the Investigating Officer of the said case was granted interim protection in a writ petition by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2024. Co-accused Umesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. It is further argued that co-accused Hitesh Krishna, the Investigating Officer of the said case was granted interim protection in a writ petition by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2024. Co-accused Umesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10764 of 2024, copy of the same produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 10 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 6.2.2024. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued the applicant was the person from whose possession bribe money was recovered as such the prayer for bail be rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant was posted as Home Guard in the concerned police station. The matter was investigated by the Circle Officer and the accused therein was exonerated much earlier. There was no occasion for the applicant to demand and accept money even otherwise there was no allegation of the applicant demanding any bribe for the said work. Co-accused Umesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Gaur, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. The bail application is allowed.