Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 28 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24120 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3473 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Jain,Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0535 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2), 61(2), 111(2)(b), B.N.S., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.10.2024 against the applicant and his wife Smt. Shakuntala Sharma by the informant stating that he retired from the post of Special Secretary, U.P. Government, in the year 2017. He came into contact with the applicant and the applicant visited the informant's home alongwith his wife. He told that after leaving Police service, he has 84 liquor shops. The informant asked as to how a person can get such a large number of shops, the accused persons told that they had taken shops in different names and they can get liquor shops for the informant also. The F.I.R. narration is that the applicant had offered to get three liquor shops to the informant, as the informant has been an honest officer. The informant transferred Rs. 22,62,000/- to the applicant through cheque and he paid Rs. 75,50,000/- in cash during the period 05.05.2024 to 30.09.2024. Meanwhile, the applicant offered to get the matrimonial litigation of the informant's son Anil closed and took money in cash for this reason also. It is further stated that the applicant had taken the informant to the Excise Office on 29.09.2024 and he had taken some stamp papers and seven signed cheques with him, all of which were misplaced. The applicant gave photocopies of three licences to the informant, all of which turned out to be fake. When the informant demanded his money back, the applicant started threatening him and he misutilized the cheques of the informant.
5. Even in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. he stated that his lost cheques had been kept by the applicant. He presented the cheques in the Bank, and when the cheques were dishonoured, the applicant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the informant.
6. In response to a specific question, the informant admitted that no agreement had been entered into between him and the accused persons for getting him liquor shops licences.
7. The procedure of grant of liquor licences in the State of U.P. has been annexed with the bail-application and it is a part of the case-diary also, as per which, the application for obtaining liquor license has to be submitted through the official website of Uttar Pradesh Excise Department or the respective District Authorities. Thereafter, the applicant has to pay the application-fee. If the application and business premises meet all the criterias, the Excise Department will process the application. The process may take several weeks or months. Upon approval, a liquor licence will be issued to the applicant. The entire process is completed through the online mode and even the application-fee has to be paid through the online mode only.
8. In response to a specific question put to the learned counsel for the informant as to whether he had taken any step for obtaining liquor licence and whether he had submitted any online application for obtaining the licence and whether he had arranged any premises in respect of which the application for licence was moved, learned counsel for the informant answered in the negative.
9. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has no criminal history and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in seven other criminal cases has been disclosed in para-29 of the affidavit, out of which, one of the proceedings has been quashed by means of an order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. No. 6939 of 2024. In the second case, the applicant has been exonerated during investigation. Four cases relate to offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years and no notice has been received by the applicant in any of those cases. In the last case, the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mau. It has also been stated in the affidavit that applicant's wife/co-accused Shakuntala Sharma has been granted bail in the present case by means of an order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and his brother in law, Pintoo Sharma, has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (P.C.Act)-V, Lucknow.
10. On 25.04.2025 this court had passed an order directing the informant to file a short counter-affidavit showing particulars regarding arrangement of the amount of Rs. 75,50,000/- and also to provide clarity as to the nature of payment made to the applicant.
11. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant annexing therewith copies of the relevant extract of his bank-statement, which shows cash withdrawals made by the informant on various dates. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the amount was paid for obtaining liquor licence, however, when the informant himself has worked as Special Secretary in the State Government, he must be well aware about the procedure for obtaining a liquor licence, which is by submitting an online application and fulfilling the requisite formalities. In the present case, the informant who is a retired Special Secretary claims to have paid a huge amount in cash to the applicant for obtaining three liquor licences without adopting the prescribed procedure. Prima facie it appears that it is the informant himself, who initially endeavoured to obtain liquor licence through illegal means and after having failed in this endeavour, he has taken legal recourse regarding his grievance of having failed to succeed in his illegal endeavour. Attempt made by a retired government officer to obtain multiple liquor licences through illegal means without taking recourse to the legal means and, thereafter, setting the criminal justice system in motion after having failed in his endeavour raises a serious question against the conduct of the informant- retired government officer and prima facie attracts the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
12. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and he submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant, his wife and son on 14.01.2025.
13. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant has retired from the post of Special Secretary in the U.P. Government; he claims to have paid more than Rs. 1 crore for obtaining three liquor licences, without having followed the prescribed procedure for obtaining liquor licence and for closing a matrimonial case of his son in the Family Court, which prima facie indicates that the informant himself is guilty of committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; apparently there have been some monetary transactions between the parties and the applicant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the informant; besides the statement of the informant, which makes out a prima facie case of commission of offence by the informant himself, there is no other material to support that the applicant had agreed to get liquor shop licence for the informant and the informant has admitted that no agreement in this regard has been entered into between them; that both the co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Court, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.
14. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Rakesh Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 28.4.2025 A.Nigam