Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 7 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2678 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46500 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 05 of 2023, under Sections 13(1)(B) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption, District Varanasi.
3. Initially the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 43109 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), Case Crime No. 05 of 2023, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial. The order reads as under:
"1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Dutta Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2023, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a Sub-Inspector in police department and the allegations of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the original complainant is absolutely false and baseless. It is submitted that the investigation in the present matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 06.11.2023. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery as stated in paragraph 21 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 09.09.2023.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR. It is submitted that the investigation of the present matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 06.11.2023.
5. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the investigation in the present matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 06.11.2023 against the applicant. The applicant was a Sub-Inspector and he is having no criminal antecedents.
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) 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. 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 174-A 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 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed."
4. Subsequently, an application for correction No. 9/2024 and an Amendment Application No. 10/2024 were moved for correcting the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by this Court by adding Sections 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which stood rejected as being misconceived and amendment application was also rejected since the Court was of the opinion that there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the said order. The order dated 21.11.2024 reads as under:
"Ref : Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 9 of 2024.
1. Heard Sri Navaneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. This is an application for correction dated 18.11.2024 for correcting the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by this Court by adding sections 13(1)B and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the said order.
3. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant under the said sections has also been rejected vide order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the concerned trial court. The free certified copy of the said order has been placed before this Court which is Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 12.10.2023.
4. Perusal of the same goes to show that a second bail application was preferred by the applicant before the trial court concerned under the said sections, which was rejected. It is not a case that there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the first bail application which consequently flowed in the order of its rejection by the trial court but a second bail application has been filed under the said sections which has been rejected by an independent order dated 11.10.2023 on the strength which it is submitted that the said sections be permitted to be amended in the present bail application and consequently, the order granting bail to the applicant dated 08.11.2024 be also corrected. The same cannot be done as an independent bail application titled as second bail application under the said sections was moved before the trial court concerned, which has been rejected.
5. It is not a case that the rejection order of the first bail application was having any clerical or arithmetical error. Since, the second bail application has been rejected by the trial court concerned, the same cannot be permitted to be corrected and incorporated in the present bail application.
6. The correction application is thus, misconceived and rejected.
Ref : Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 10 of 2014.
1. An amendment application is also filed before this Court, the same is also rejected in view of the reasons disclosed in the order passed in the correction application."
5. Subsequently, the applicant moved an application for bail before the court concerned which stand under the newly added sections which stands rejected vide order dated 11.10.2023. The present bail application has thus been filed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has initially been granted bail under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the present case crime number. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 10.09.2023 against the applicant. It is submitted that subsequently a charge sheet dated 04.11.2023 was filed against the applicant under Sections 7, 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 06.11.2023 and the said sections are newly added sections. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.09.2023.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact as aforesaid.
8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was initially granted bail under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in which the FIR was registered. Subsequently, charge sheet under Sections 7, 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been filed. The sections of the present bail application are newly added sections. The applicant has been granted bail under Section 7 of the P.C. Act vide order dated 08.11.2024 by this Court.
9. 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.
10. Let the applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav, 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. 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 174-A 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 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
11. 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.
12. The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)