Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52314 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8312 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1072 of 2024, under Sections 7/8 and 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
2-Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant Nitin Goyal got an F.I.R. lodged on 19.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 7/8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, against the applicant, who is a police officer alleging inter-alia that non-bailable warrant and the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were issued against his relative Rekha by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistration, Bulandshahr in ST No. 235/2007 under Section 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in which the applicant took a total sum of Rs. 55,000/- for not arresting her and some more money is being demanded. Money was given in front of his neighbour Keshav Kaushik, who was present at that time.
4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the relatives of the complainant, namely, Smt. Anshu, Pintu, Rekha and Meena Rani are accused in Case Crime No. 709 of 2000 (Case No. 233 of 2007) registered under Section 506 I.P.C. and Section Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, in which they were absconding since long, therefore, on 07.12.2024, non-bailable warrants were issued against them, but they did not appear before the trial Court to face trial proceeding, therefore, proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also initiated against them on 09.12.2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar. Referring the entry made in G.D. no. 072 dated 16.12.2024, it is submitted that the applicant was posted at Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. He was directed and sent to the residential address of aforesaid accused persons situated at Ghaziabad to serve the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, applicant in discharge of his official duty, proceeded from Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr on 16.12.2024 at 20:55 o'clock and reached at Police Station Sihani Gate (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) and after making entry in G.D. no. 030 dated 17.12.2024 of police station Sihani Gate, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad, he proceeded on 17.12.2024 at about 11:30 o'clock to serve the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. On reaching there, accused persons were not found at their address, therefore, he affixed the notice/order of 82 Cr.P.C. at the main gate of their house and also made munadi by beating drum. After completion of the work allotted to him, he returned on 17.12.2024 and submitted his report about execution of his work and also made entry in this regard in G.D. No. 055 dated 17.12.2024 at about 20:00 o'clock of Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. On the strength of aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that since the accused were annoyed on account of service of notice/order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the applicant as noted above, therefore, a false complaint has been made against him. It is also submitted that applicant was assigned the work of service of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. only and no police force was sent along with him to arrest the accused persons. So far as the alleged recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from the possession of applicant is concerned, it was argued that no trap proceeding was led in accordance with rules and the same has been falsely shown and manipulated in order to falsely implicate the applicant. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant who is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024 may be enlarged on bail.
5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that Keshav Kaushik in his statement has stated inter-alia that on 20.11.2024 applicant came to complainant's shop and demanded Rs. 20,000/- to settle the matter, thereafter complainant with his consultation gave Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter on further demand, they also gave Rs. 35,000/- to the applicant.
6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that in the complaint / F.I.R., there is no date and time of alleged demand of bribe made by the applicant and giving alleged amount of bribe of Rs. 55,000/- by the complainant to the applicant. So far as statement of Keshav Kaushik is concerned, I find that he has stated inter-alia that first time he along with complainant has given bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 20.11.2024, whereas the G.D. entries, as noted above, reflect that the work of service of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was assigned to the applicant on 16.12.2024, hence the statement of Keshav Kaushik does not inspire confidence. There is no credible and strong corroborative material with regard to alleged demand of bribe by the applicant and acceptance of bribe amount except the oral statement of complainant and his associate Keshav Kaushik, which is a disputed fact, which requires proof before the trial Court after leading evidence in accordance with law. However, in the light of facts of this case, possibility of moving false complaint on being annoyed by the service of notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the applicant also cannot be ruled out.
7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
8-Let the applicant-Mukesh Sharma, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
9-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Saurabh