Bhagirathi Singh vs State of U.P.

M.K. Mittal, J.—Learned Counsel for the State has filed counteraffidavit. Keep on record.

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jagdish Pathak for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

Accused applicant Bhagirathi Singh son of Sri Mata Prasad has prayed for release on bail in case crime No. 253/07 under Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been wrongly implicated in this matter and that he had no occasion to demand any illegal gratification from the complainant. The brief facts are that Baijnath Prasad was posted as Supply Inspector in the District Supply Office, Azamgarh. There were some complaints against him and he was suspended by the Commissioner, Khad Evam Rasad Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, vide order dated 27112006 and was attached with the District Supply Office, Varanasi. The report against Baijnath Prasad on the basis of which, he was suspended, was made by Sri Santlal Gupta, the then District Supply Officer. By the time the suspension was directed, the present applicant had taken over as District Supply Officer, Azamgarh. The applicant was also directed to send all the relevant papers connected with Baijnath Prasad to the Enquiry Officer. According to Baijnath Prasad, the accused was not sending his last pay certificate to Varanasi office and was demanding money. In this connection he also gave letters to the accused. Subsequently, the sanction was taken from the concerned departments of the State Government and a trap was laid on 8th February, 2007 and the accused was arrested red handed while accepting the bribe money from Baijnath Prasad in his office. However, he was taken to the police station and the recovery fard was prepared there.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the complainant Baijnath Prasad had been pressurizing the accused not to send his papers to the Enquiry Officer but he did not oblige him and on this account he was annoyed. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also contended that the L.P.C. of Baijnath Prasad was prepared and was sent by the applicant on 612007 to the District Supply Officer, Varanasi. In this connection the accused has filed a letter from the concerned District Supply Officer. This fact has also been admitted in the counteraffidavit that the L.P.C. of Baijnath Prasad was sent by the applicant on 61 2007. On this basis the learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that since the L.P.C. had been sent there was no occasion for him to make any demand and the trap as laid on 8th February, 2007 is planted one and he has been falsely implicated in this matter.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has also contended that the applicant is suffering from liver cirrhosis since 2000 and is presently admitted in the Medical College, Gorakhpur, by the order of the concerned Court.

Learned Counsel for the State has contended that even if the applicant had prepared the L.P.C. and had sent it, he should have informed the complainant about that fact. But according to the learned Counsel for the applicant the applicant was under no obligation to inform die complainant. The record also shows that after reporting at Varanasi Office on 13th December, 2006, the complainant never appeared thereafter, in that office and it appears that on that account he could not know about the sending of the L.P.C. by the applicant.

In the circumstances of the present case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case and also sickness of the applicant accused, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in the above case.

The applicant shall furnish an undertaking before the Court concerned that he will not indulge in any criminal or antisocial activity, will not cause either any direct or indirect threat or any physical violence to the complainant and the witnesses and their family members and shall also not tamper with the evidence. If any such report is made by any of the above person either to the Court or the police, it shall be properly inquired into and if any substance therein is found, it shall be open to the Court below to take necessary legal action against the applicant.