High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 23046 of 2006  RD-AH 19874 (23 November 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23046 of 2006.
Bhanu Pratap Singh versus State of UP
Hon. Vinod Prasad, J
Bhanu Pratap Singh, a Senior Marketing inspector, had filed this bail application in this court seeking his release on bail in crime number 1051 of 2006 under sections 7/13 Prevention Of Corruption Act PS Saidpur District Ghazipur.
The prosecution allegations against him are that a complaint was made by Kamlesh Yadav against the applicant on 2.9.2006 at 12 in the noon to Nand Lal Yadav , Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption, Varanasi that without taking Rs. Two Thousand as bribe the applicant does no sign the slip of transporting the rice from RFC godown to the rice mill of Jagannath Yadav situated at village Daulatpur known as Jagar Nath Yadav Rice Mill, which belongs to his father. For milling the rice is supplied by RFC. For encashment of the bill of transportation the slip is a must. It is further alleged that in the month of February 2006 six-truck load of rice was transported to his mill but the bill was not being signed by the applicant without taking the money. The complainant even got a bill prepared from a clerk but even then the applicant did not become ready to sign the bill on 30.8.2006. The complainant again requested him to sign the said bill on 2.9.2006 but again it was refused for the said reason. It is further alleged that the applicant warned the complainant that if he will not pay Rs. Two Thousand till 5.9.2006 he will torn off his bill. As the complainant did not wanted to pay the money he made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Department, as he wanted to get the applicant arrested read handed. On the complaint of Kamlesh Yadav a trap was laid for 5.9.2006. On that day Nand Lal Yadav. Dy. S.P. along with other police personals reached Ghazipur from the department Jeep UP 32 BG 0653. There they met the complainant Kamlesh Yadav. On being asked to get two independent persons to be a witness of the trap, the complainant brought Dinesh Prasad Gupta and Mundi Ansari for the said purpose. Kamlesh Yadav was handed over two five hundred rupees currency notes and ten hundred rupees notes. The numbers of these currencies were noted by the raiding party with small signature of Dy. S. P. and they were also sticked with Phenolphthalein powder. The representative solution was prepared. The applicant was trapped that day on 12.50 PM in RFC godown taking bribe of Rs. two thousand from the complainant. The formalities of the trap were observed which finds mention in the FIR registered at PS Saidpur District Ghazipur on 5.9.2006 at 4 PM that day as crime number 1051 of 2006 under sections 7/13 (2) P.C. Act. On these allegations the applicant has sought bail from this court after the same was rejected by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Varanasi on 8.9.2006. ( Annexure no. 2).
I have herd Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assistaed by Smt. Raj Lakshami Sinha advocate for the applicant and the learned AGA in opposition.
Sri Chaturvedi contended that in this case because of dispute between Ram Dev Yadav, a clerk in the office of the applicant and the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further argued that the applicant was on leave on 2.9.06 and 3.9.06 and later on he was arrested on 5.9.2006 from his house and was implicated in this case. He further contended that the complainant Kamlesh Yadav was pressurizing the applicant to sign a false bill of Rs. 12000/=, which the applicant had refused therefore he had been falsely implicated in this crime connivance with Nand Lal Yadav, Dy. S. P. Anti Corruption, Varanasi and Ramu Yadav clerk who had earlier lodged a NCR against the applicant. It is also contended that the two independent persons are the pocket witnesses of complainant and the raiding party. He further contended that there is no mention about the number of currency notes on the recovery memo alleged to have been prepared on the spot. He also contended that no permission of the higher authorities was obtained before organizing the raid and that the applicant is a heart patient aged about 55 years and he is incarcerated in jail since 5.9.2006. On these submissions the bail is being sought by the learned senior counsel.
Learned AGA contrarily pointed out that the applicant is public servant and he was caught read handed taking bribe and all the formalities of the raid were observed by the raiding party. He also contended that it is a case of corruption and taking of bribe, which is a social crime.
I have considered the submissions of the rival sides and have gone through the record of this bail application. In my view this not a fit case for bail and hence the bail, prayer of the applicant stands rejected and this bail application is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.