Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1719 (ALL)

Jhillu Ram v. State of U. P.

2024-07-23

RAJEEV MISRA

body2024
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. 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 inference of conspiracy can be drawn against applicant either. To lend legal support to his submission, he has referred to the following judgments : (i) V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 665 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraph 8. (ii) Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraph 274, 275 (iii) K.T.M.S. Mohd. To lend legal support to his submission, he has referred to the following judgments : (i) V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 665 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraph 8. (ii) Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraph 274, 275 (iii) K.T.M.S. Mohd. and another v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178 (Division Bench) Paragraph 54 (iv) Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 (Division Bench) Paragraph 96 (v) E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, (1995) 2 SCC 99 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 20 and 21 (vi) State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 12 and 13 (vii) Saju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 7 and 10 (viii) Devendra Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 5 SCC 234 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraphs 40, 41, 43 and 49 (ix) Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraphs 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 (x) Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraphs 346, 347, 354 (xi) Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 12 SCC 336 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (xii) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 96, 97, 98, 99 and 101 (xiii) Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 20 and 25 (xiv) Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564 (Division Bench) Paragraph 17 (xv) Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 722 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 (xvi) Baliya Alias Bal Kishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 696 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 (xvii) Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 (Division Bench) Paragraph 24 (xviii) N.V. Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 162 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 40 and 41 (xix) State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, (2017) 6 SCC 263 , (Division Bench) Paragraphs 173 and 176 (xx) Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 (Three Judges Bench) Paragraphs 286, 288, 290, 464, 465, 466, 468 and 471 (xxi) Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2019) 17 SCC 451 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 (xxii) Rajendra @ Rajesh @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 10, 12 and 17 (xxiii) Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184, (Division Bench) Paragraph 12 (xxiv) Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 7 SCC 721 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 (xxv) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1080 (Division Bench) Pragraphs 24 and 25 (xxvi) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 (Division Bench) Paragraph 32 (xxvii) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1470 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 35 and 36 (xxviii) Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 (xxix) Bhojram Sahu and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 3966 (Division Bench) Paragraphs 36 and 37 9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 3.5.2024. As such, he has undergone more than 2 and 1/2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Offence complained of against applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the status of applicant, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 11. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the status of applicant, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 11. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the recovery of bribe money has not been made from the person of applicant, the applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 120-B IPC, since conspiracy is a closed door affair, therefore, subject to trial evidence, there is no direct evidence up to this stage to establish conspiracy against applicant, conspiracy can, however, be inferred from the circumstances also, up to this stage, no such circumstances has emerged on the record of aforementioned case crime number so as to infer conspiracy against applicant, there is no basis for the demand alleged to have been made from the applicant, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), is squarely attracted in the case of applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), applicant is a Government servant and there are no chances of his fleeing away from the trial, if enlarged on bail, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant-Jhillu Ram, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. 14. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.