Allahabad High Court
Satai Prajapati vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:67454
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 451 of 2023
Satai Prajapati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State are present. None appears for the complainant.
The applicant has moved the present application praying for grant of anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 107 of 2020, under Section 166, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
This Court while giving interim protection has passed the following order on 22.2.2023 :-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 107 of 2020, under Section 166, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
The allegations, in brief, in the First Information Report are that the accused persons. who are employed in Confidential Section of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as UPSSSC). have in gross violation of the reservation policy selected the candidates which were not eligible for the service. Further allegation is that the accused persons have manipulated the selection process according to their whims. It is also alleged that the accused persons were negligent in conducting the verification process as such they have selected a female candidate in the male category.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the entire prosecution story is taken as it is, no offence under Section 166 Indian Penal Code and Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is merely a Clerk. There is no specific allegation in the First Information Report against the present applicant. The applicant is not a member in the selection Board. In order to attract the provision of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused is must. There is no such allegation in the prosecution case. Likewise, to attract Section 166 I.P.C. the essential ingredients are missing. There is no allegation of disobedience of law or taking gratification or favouring any person in lieu of some consideration. The applicant has unblemished service records. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge-sheet has been filed. It is not the case of prosecution that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation and therefore in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amanpreet vs. State, he is not required to be sent to the judicial custody.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed fifteen days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 03.04.2023.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced; perusal of the record; considering the fact that essential ingredients to attract Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 166 I.P.C. prima facie appear to be missing; the applicant has explained the criminal history; the applicant was not arrested during investigation and the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial; and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. "
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in compliance of order extracted above, the applicant has filed bonds before the trial court and the applicant has cooperated in the trial and not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail.
Considering the interim protection granted vide order extracted above which has not been misused by the applicant, undertaking that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.
The application is allowed accordingly.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) October 29, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S