Allahabad High Court
Surendra vs Union Of India And Another on 22 September, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183806 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30624 of 2023 Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in RC No.1202023A0001, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station CBI/ACB, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has given much stress to the argument that applicant does not fall within the definition of public servant. He was neither a regular nor temporary employee of the said Bank. As per letter issued by concerned Union Bank, the applicant was working as casual worker and he was paid Rs.6,000/- for April month for loan recovery work and other miscellaneous work and similar payments were made by the Bank from October 2022, to him. Referring to case of Sumitra vs. State of Maharashtra, [2014 Legal Eagle (BOM) 2161], it was submitted that such a casual worker would not fall within the ambit of public servant. It is further submitted that according to prosecution version, the applicant was working as Field Officer/Agricultural Officer, which is not supported by any document and that alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- was made from one Ashok Kumar, whereas, the complaint has been lodged by one Narsingh Solanki and that there is no evidence that any demand was made from Narsingh Solanki, who has allegedly paid the kickback amount of Rs.21,000/- to the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that alleged incident of trap, wherein, it was shown that an amount of Rs.21,000/- was given by complainant Narsingh to the applicant, is thoroughly false and that there is no independent witness of alleged incident.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was not authorized or capable for withdrawal of the alleged loan amount of the de-facto complainant Narsingh. Even if the prosecution case is accepted as such, applicant was working merely a casual employee and thus, he was not in a position to allow the withdrawal of the loan amount and thus, there was no occasion on behalf of the applicant to make any such demand.
5. It is further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 07.06.2023, having no criminal history, and thus, he has already undergone the detention of about more than three months and investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted. Lastly, it was submitted that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.
6. Learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India has opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant was working in the said Union Bank and he was performing public duty and he was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month as remuneration for the said work and thus, the applicant would fall within the ambit of 'public servant'. Learned Senior Counsel has referred the version of counter affidavit and submitted that applicant accused was performing several functions and duties in the said Bank and there is evidence that he has demanded Rs.20,000/- from said Ashok Kumar. Learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India has placed reliance upon case of State of Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah [AIR 2020, SUPREME COURT 2203: AIROnline 2020, SC 487, wherein, in paragraph 48, 49, 50, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"48. This Court in the case of Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420: (AIR 2014 SC 648) further elucidated upon the ambit of the phrase "public servant" by stressing upon the relevance of "office", wherein the emphasis was upon the duties performed. The Court noted therein:
"19. The present Act (the 1988 Act) envisages widening of the scope of the definition of the expression "public servant". It was brought in force to purify public administration. The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing corruption among public servants. Hence, it would be inappropriate to limit the contents of the definition clause by a construction which would be against the spirit of the statute. Bearing in mind this principle, when we consider the case of the appellant, we have no doubt that he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Clause (viii) of Section 2(c) of the present Act makes any person, who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, to be a public servant. The word "office" is of indefinite connotation and, in the present context, it would mean a position or place to which certain duties are attached and has an existence which is independent of the persons who fill it." (emphasis supplied)
49. In order to appreciate the amplitude of the word "public servant", the relevance of the term "public duty" cannot be disregarded. "Public duty" is defined under Section 2(b) of the PC Act, which is reproduced below:
2(b) 'public duty' means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.
50. Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the categories stated under Section 2 is a public servant whether or not appointed by the government. The second explanation further expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any legal infirmities or technicalities."
7. Referring to above stated pronouncement, it was submitted that the applicant would fall within the ambit of Public Servant and that he has accepted kickback an amount of Rs.21,000/- from the complainant and thus, he is not entitled for bail.
8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
9. Perusal of record shows that applicant-accused is neither permanent nor temporary or ad-hoc employee of the said Bank. It appears that he was working as casual worker and he was being paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- for the said work. As per prosecution version, alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- was being made from one Ashok Kumar, whereas, the complaint has been lodged by one Narsingh, who claims to be friend of Ashok Kumar. As per prosecution version, alleged illegal gratification of Rs.21,000/- was paid to the applicant by said Narsingh Solanki. The applicant-accused is stated in jail since 07.06.2023 and investigation is already complete.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
11. Let the applicant-accused Surendra involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Neeraj