# Akhilesh Kumar @ A.K. Rajiv v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4109 of 2021
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-kumar-a-k-rajiv-v-state-of-u-p-48475
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 439- Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 406, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B IPC & Prevention of
Corruption Act- Section 7ka/8(1)(1) - The
Informant is said to have been defrauded
to the tune of Rs.9,72,12,000/- It primafacie appears that the applicant was also
involved in the commissioning of said
offence and no reason was found to
falsely implicate him in the present case.
This is a high profile fraud committed by
the high profile criminals having long
reach with higher echelons of the society.
This is a white collar crime and such
offences are on the rise in the prevalent
social conditions. There is a recovery of a
suitcase at the pointing out of the
applicant. The CDR also confirms the
complicity of the applicant as he was in
regular touch to co-accused through his
mobile.

Where the offence is a serious fraud involving
high profile criminals and there is prima-facie
evidence against the accused then no case for
bail is made out under such facts and
circumstances. ( Para 15)
Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

## Text

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4109 of 2021

Akhilesh Kumar @ A.K. Rajiv ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ram Chandra Singh, Arun Sinha, Atul
Mishra, Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Siddhartha
Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Romit Seth, Varsha Sharma

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 439- Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 406, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B IPC & Prevention of
Corruption Act- Section 7ka/8(1)(1) - The
Informant is said to have been defrauded
to the tune of Rs.9,72,12,000/- It primafacie appears that the applicant was also
involved in the commissioning of said
offence and no reason was found to
falsely implicate him in the present case.
This is a high profile fraud committed by
the high profile criminals having long
reach with higher echelons of the society.
This is a white collar crime and such
offences are on the rise in the prevalent
social conditions. There is a recovery of a
suitcase at the pointing out of the
applicant. The CDR also confirms the
complicity of the applicant as he was in
regular touch to co-accused through his
mobile.

Where the offence is a serious fraud involving
high profile criminals and there is prima-facie
evidence against the accused then no case for
bail is made out under such facts and
circumstances. ( Para 15)
Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha and Sri
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsels
for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar
Shahi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the present bail
application, the applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.160 of 2020, under Sections 406,
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC &
Section 7ka/8(1)(1) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station- Hazratganj,
District- Lucknow, during the pendency of
trial.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per prosecution story, two
persons, namely, Vaibhav Shukla and his
friend Santosh Sharma are said to have met
the Informant, Manjeet Singh Bhatia @
Rinku at his residence at Indore, Madhya
Pradesh in the month of April, 2018. They
are stated to have enquired from Informant
whether he has flour mill and also about
annual turnover of his business. Vaibhav
Shukla belonged to a very respectable
family and is a closed friend of the
Informant. The said two persons, Vaibhav
Shukla and Santosh Sharma are said to
have taken documents of Informant's
company pertaining to previous financial
years and also the profile of Informant's
company. They again visited the office of
Informant and informed him that one S.K.
Mittal who is stated to be the Deputy
Director
of
Department
of
Animal
Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh, had met them
and he is very close to the Minister and
they want to get him a supply order for
5 All. Akhilesh Kumar @ A.K. Rajiv Vs. State of U.P.
177
supply of wheat, sugar, flour and pulses to
the tune of Rs.292.14 crores with the
condition that a commission of 3% of the
total amount of the supply order is to be
provided in advance. The Informant asked
them to get the time period extended as the
supply order was too big for him. Santosh
Sharma is stated to have assured him to get
the time extended. The aforesaid two
persons are said to have informed the
Informant that they would also have their
share in the profit and running the said
business. On said promise and assurance of
Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma, the
Informant has paid huge amount to them
which was to be provided to Secretary S.K.
Mittal.

4. Thereafter, the Informant was
called to Lucknow and is stated to have
visited various places along with Vaibhav
Shukla and Santosh Sharma and was even
stated to have met the said Secretary S.K.
Mittal at the Secretariat, Lucknow. The
Informant is said to have informed S.K.
Mittal that he shall require a godown to
keep the said items for which Mittal had
asked him to pay Rs.72 lakhs to M/s R.K.
Traders, U.P. as a rent for the said godown
which was deposited in the bank account of
M/s R.K. Traders by the Informant.

5. When Informant checked the online
status of the Tender, nothing was found
there only then he came to know about the
fraud committed to him of Rs.9,72,12,000/-
. The Informant enquired from Vaibhav
Shukla and Santosh Sharma about the said
absence of Tender details on website
whereupon they informed him that on
22.11.2018, they have to go to the office of
CBCID
as
there
have
been
some
complaints with regard to the said Tender
and an enquiry is being conducted. The
Informant went to the office by CBCID,
Lucknow where his entry was noted on a
register and one constable took him to the
S.P., CBCID who made certain queries
from him regarding the Tender and even
asked him to write on a paper that he had
already supplied the said material for which
he has got the order. On coming out of the
gate of CBCID office, the said S.K. Mittal
was found waiting outside and on being
asked him, the Informant told him about
the events at the CBCID office. At this, the
said S.K. Mittal had asked him to go back
to his home and also asked that he shall be
informed further details through Vaibhav
Shukla and Santosh Sharma.

6. On 26.12.2018, the Informant again
met S.K. Mittal with Vaibhav Shukla and
Santosh Sharma and then he asked the
present applicant to provide him with a
copy of the original work order, an undated
bill book and also an affidavit of some
supply and only then the said supply shall
be started. All the documents as asked by
S.K. Mittal, were sent by the Informant
through his
employee
Lavendra.
On
11.1.2019, S.K. Mittal is stated to have
retained those documents with him and sent
Lavendra and Santosh Sharma to the S.P. of
CBCID. The Informant was called several
times to Lucknow as he insisted for the
work after having paid such a heavy
amount. On 30.3.2019, the Informant was
called to Lucknow and he had stayed in
Oyo room behind Piccadily hotel and from
where they kept on calling S.K. Mittal for
the said amount who assured him that the
said money shall be transferred to his
account through RTGS. On 31.3.2019 at
about 06:00 PM, the Informant was asked
to reach in front of Phoenix Mall,
Lucknow. The Informant along with
Vaibhav Shukla, Santosh Sharma and his
friend Rakesh Porwal reached there from
where they were forcibly abducted by
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
police men in three vehicles including one
constable
Dilbahar
Singh
and
were
threatened that if they raised any alarm,
they shall be put to death. Thereafter, they
were taken to police station Naka Hindola,
Lucknow where they were threatened by
police personnel and are said to have
retained their ID proofs also. They were
released by the police personnel after
threatening them that if they were seen
again, they will be killed in an encounter.

7. The Informant came to know later
on that the person who had met him as S.K.
Mittal is actually Ashish Rai an imposter,
who runs an entertainment office at
Mumbai and there are several police and
media
personnel
connected
to
him
including Monti Gurjar, Roopak Rai,
Santosh Mishra, A.K. Rajiv (present
applicant), Amit Mishra, Uma Shankar
Tewari, Rajnish Dixit, Anil Rai. The two
D.B. Singh and Arun Rai are stated to be
the hardcore criminal. Anil Rai, Editor of
reputed channel along with Dheeraj Kumar,
Private Secretary, Department of Animal
Husbandry and Umesh Mishra from the
office of State Minister, Animal Husbandry
and others were also involved in the
commissioning of aforesaid offence. The
Informant is said to have been defrauded to
the tune of Rs.9,72,12,000/-.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
stated that the applicant, who is a
permanent resident of Lucknow, has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He
has not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Although the applicant
is named in the FIR but no specific
allegations have been levelled against him
by the Informant as well as the main
witnesses Santosh Sharma and Vaibhav
Shukla. Learned counsel has argued that
the police arrested the main accused Ashish
Rai in connection with the present case and
at his pointing out, the police is stated to
have gone to the house of the applicant on
14.6.2020 at Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow and when the applicant had
opened the door of his house, he was
identified by Ashish Rai as A.K. Rajiv. The
name of the applicant A.K. Rajiv @
Akhilesh Kumar was revealed there. The
police is stated to have enquired about
some documents connected with the
present case on which the applicant is said
to have procured a suitcase from a room
adjoining to his house. The said suitcase
was sealed and seized at the spot and the
arrest/recovery memo was also prepared by
the police.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also relied upon the statement of his
Saving Bank Account, State Bank Branch,
Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow wherein an
amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is said to have
been transferred through three transactions
on 27.7.2018, 3.8.2018 and 24.1.2019.
There is no evidence of the source of the
amount transferred in the said transactions.
No cash has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant though recovery
of Rs.28 lakhs have been made from the
house of co-accused Ashish Rai. There is
no allegation that the first Informant
directly or indirectly paid any amount to
the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further argued that no case under the
Prevention of Corruption Act is made out
against him as he is a private person and
has nothing to do with it. The money
transferred to the account of the applicant
by co-accused Ashish Rai was the payment
of a loan which he had taken from him. The
5 All. Akhilesh Kumar @ A.K. Rajiv Vs. State of U.P.
179
amount transferred to his account was not a
share of the amount usurped by co-accused
Ashish Rai. The applicant is a respectable
person and a renowned journalist of the
locality. He being a social person meet
several persons daily and had no inkling of
any offence having been committed by
Ashish Rai. The allegations levelled against
the applicant have come up in the
concluding part of the FIR and not in the
main body. The applicant has not forged
any document or used it as a genuine one.
As a matter of fact, nothing incriminating
has been recovered either from the
possession of the applicant or at his
pointing out. False recovery has been
shown from his possession by the police
only to show good work. There is no
evidence
against
him
except
the
confessional statement of the co-accused
persons which is not admissible under the
Indian Evidence Act. The applicant has not
given any confessional statement to the
police and if any confessional statement
has been recorded by it, is false. There is no
criminal history of the applicant.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the applicant had
the possession of the documents kept in a
suitcase were already in the knowledge of
the police before the said recovery as it is
said to have been revealed by the coaccused Ashish Rai. So the fact already
discovered has been re-discovered by them.
The said recovery does not fall within the
ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further contended that the co-accused
Monti Gurjar against whom identical
allegations have been levelled, has already
been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide
order dated 18.12.2020. The co-accused
Sachin Verma has also been released on
short-term bail by this Court vide order
dated 22.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.1456 of 2021. The
applicant is ready to deposit the amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-
immediately
after
his
release within a stipulated period fixed by
the Court. The charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicant. There is nothing on
record to suggest that there is any
conversation of the applicant either to the
Informant or the co-accused persons. The
allegation against the applicant is that he
had introduced the Constable Dilbahar
Yadav to the first Informant, although if it
is so, introducing a person to somebody
else does not constitute any offence. There
is no likelihood of applicant tampering with
evidence and he is ready to cooperate with
trial.

13. Per contra, Sri Vinod Kumar
Shahi, learned AAG assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar Mishra, learned AGA-I have
vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the
applicant on the ground that none of the
accused persons have been granted bail in
the present subject matter. The first
Informant
has
been
victimized
and
traumatized by the applicant and other coaccused persons and has even been illegally
threatened and beaten up in police custody
by the officials of police at CBCID office
and P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow. The
Informant could not bear the trauma and as
such took the refuge of the then Speaker of
Lok Sabha and on whose directions, the
instant FIR has been lodged.

14. Sri Shahi, has further argued that
the alleged offence was executed in a well
planned
and
orchestrated
manner
in
connivance with the Personal Assistant and
Peon of the Minister along with other
named co-accused persons. The said sealed
suitcase recovered from his possession was
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opened in the presence of Magistrate
concerned in which a large amount of
documents was found which pertain to the
said
offence
which
substantiates
the
allegations of complicity of applicant. The
documents relating to the Department of
Animal Husbandry were also recovered and
the same have been annexed as Annexure-5
to the counter affidavit. He has further
placed reliance upon the details of the CDR
of the mobile numbers of the applicant
indicating that he was in constant touch
with the co-accused person Ashish Rai and
Dilbahar Yadav from his mobile number
9415907020. The CDR is also a part of the
Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit.

CONCLUSION

15. It would be inappropriate to
discuss the evidence in depth at this stage
because it is likely to influence the trial
court but from the perusal of the evidence
collected during investigation so far, it
prima-facie appears that the applicant was
also involved in the commissioning of said
offence and no reason was found to falsely
implicate him in the present case. This is a
high profile fraud committed by the high
profile criminals having long reach with
higher echelons of the society. This is a
white collar crime and such offences are on
the rise in the prevalent social conditions.
There is a recovery of a suitcase at the
pointing out of the applicant. The CDR also
confirms the complicity of the applicant as
he was in regular touch to co-accused
Ashish Rai and Dilbahar Yadav through his
mobile.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence, complicity of accused, fraud of
huge amount, involvement of high echelons
as well as the rival submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am not inclined to
release the applicant on bail.

17. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.

19. However, it is directed that every
endeavor shall be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is
no other legal impediment.
----------
(2022)05ILR A180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4319 of 2021

Rajkumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439- Bail- Indian Penal
Code, 1860- Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467,
468, 471 of IPC- Prevention oif Corruption
Act, 1988- Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) -
Financial irregularities committed with
criminal intent in the work of "Gomti River