# Alok Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 606
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32305 of 2025
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-singh-v-state-of-u-p-53951
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 70,607. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 606
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32305 of 2025

Alok Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether accused should be granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who already bailed by the
Supreme Court.

Whether the other connected Criminal Misc. Applications filed by other co-accused's seeking quashing of
charge sheet and cognizance order are maintainable.

Whether criminal proceedings (Trial) are delayed due to interim protection orders granted in favour of the
co-accused.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections - 205, 317, 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 120-B, 406, 420 - Second Bail application - connected with three Criminal Misc.
Application U/s 482 No. 1569/2025 and Criminal Applications U/s 528 BNSS No. 8780/2025 & 18833/2025 -
Bail Application filed against rejection of first bail - earlier first Bail rejected - FIR - alleging offence of illegal
seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs, threats, and corruption - investigation concluded, statements recorded - recovery of
Rs. 30 lakhs from accused and Rs. 14 lakhs from co-accused - charge sheet filed - cognizance taken - trial
initiated but delayed due to interim protection orders for co-accused - connected cases under Section 528
BNSS dismissed, interim relief vacated - applicant pleaded parity with co-accused granted bail by Supreme
Court and long incarceration - Court finds that, trial delay due to interim protection "no coercive action"
orders for co-accused, resulted charges not framed - parity principle applicable - law on quashing strict,
Section 91 CrPC not available at pre-trial stage, disputed facts to be tested at trial - held - Second bail
granted to applicant-accused for four months subject to strict conditions including attendance, non-tampering,
and surrender after expiry - hence, second bail allowed - but temporarily - other connected Criminal
Applications are dismissed - further, directions issued to trial court to expedite the trial proceedings - and
Registrar of High Court directed to communicate order to District Judge Gorakhpur accordingly. (Para - 26, 35,
36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47)

Bail granted but, Application is remained pending. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 - Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 - Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947) -
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 626).

LIST OF ACTS
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
607
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Bharatiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail Application - Parity Principle - Quashing of Charge Sheet - Cognizance Order - No Coercive Action -
prerogative of the police - recovery - confessional statement - prevention of corruption - test of identification
- extraordinary and inherent powers of the court - law for quashing is strict and trite - Long Incarceration -
Fair Trial Rights - Mini Trial Doctrine - Expedited Trial - Bail for short time.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 93/2024, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur - Sessions Case No. 898/2024
pending before Special Judge (PC Act), Court No. 2, Gorakhpur.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Narendra Kumar, Sri Raja Chaudhary (holding brief), Sri Preet Pal Singh
Rathore, Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri Birendra Pratap Singh, AGA-I , Sri Ajay Singh, AGA-I (earlier hearings).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raja Chaudhary, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar along with Sri
Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32305 of
2025 & Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.1569 of 2025 (Alok Singh vs. State of U.P. and
another), Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant in Application U/S 528
BNSS No.8780 of 2025 (Vishal Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another) and Sri Karunesh Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 18833 of 2025 (Prachand
Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and another) and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
State in all the matters. Perused the record and also the orders dated 05.01.2026 and 16.01.2026
passed by this Court in the bail application.

2. The present bunch of cases consists of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32305 of
2025: Alok Singh vs. State of U.P., Application U/s 482 No. 1569 of 2025: Alok Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and another, Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 8780 of 2025: Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of
U.P. and another and Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 18833 of 2025: Prachand Pratap Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and another.

3. The bail application was earlier taken up on 05.01.2026 and following order was passed by
this Court:-

'1. This matter is listed today as item no. 129 in the daily cause list of this Bench.

2. Post lunch, Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant,
made a mention by producing before the Court an order dated 19.12.2025 in Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No. 16835 of 2025 (Prince Srivastava v. The State of UP) which is connected
with SLP (Criminal) No. 15778 of 2025 that the Apex Court has granted bail to co-accused Prince
Srivastava vide the said order whereas insofar as the applicant is concerned, has requested the
High Court to consider the case of the applicant for regular bail as expeditiously as possible on its
merits and in accordance with law, preferably before 30.01.2026.
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The order passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 15778 of 2025, which relates to the applicant,
reads as under:

"We dispose of this Special Leave Petition by noting the fact that the petitioner herein has
sought for regular bail (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.32305 of 2025 pending on the file of the
High Court of Allahabad) and the said application is pending before the High Court.

In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to go into the correctness of the impugned order
as in the present case the petitioner had sought default bail and the said stage has now lapsed.

We therefore request the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner herein for
regular bail as expeditiously as possible on its own merits and in accordance with law and
preferably before 30.01.2026.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

4. This is the second bail application of the applicant- Alok Singh in Case Crime No.
93/2024, under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur. The first bail application of the
applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25998/2024 (Alok Singh v. State of UP), was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-12
of the paper-book and submitted that the trial court proceedings of the present matter has been
staying as an order of no coercive action has been passed in favour of the accused- Vishal Tiwari
in an application under Section 528 BNSS No. 8780/2025 (Vishal Tiwari v. State of UP & Anr.). It
is submitted that thus, the charge in the matter has still not been framed and the trial court is
marking the presence of the accused through video conferencing and adjourning the matter by
observing that there is a stay order by the High Court. He has placed before the Court the certified
and true copy of the order sheet of the trial court, which is Annexure-13 to the affidavit, which is
from 7-6-2024 to 3-9-2025. The situation thus is that one co-accused has got a protective order in
the nature of no coercive action against him in a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS which is
stated to be pending before this Court. However, insofar as the applicant and other co-accused are
concerned, there is no such order but the trial as a whole is being adjourned on the said pretext. It
could not be brought to the notice of the court that there has been any stay of proceedings by any
specific order passed by any court. More so, since a petition under Section 528 BNSS has been
filed by co-accused and is pending, due to which the trial is being adjourned and is not being taken
up by the trial court; it would be proper and appropriate that the same be tagged with the present
application for being decided together.

6. Connect with application under Section 528 BNSS No. 8780/2025 (Vishal Tiwari v.
State of UP & Anr.).

7. The file be then placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for nominating a Bench to
hear both the matters.
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
609

8. When the matter is listed next, the details of the connected file shall also be printed in
the cause list.

9. The order of the Apex Court as produced by the learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.

10. When the matter is listed next, the office shall print the matter under the heading
"Supreme Court Expedited Matter".

11. Let the matter be listed on 16.1.2026.

12. In the meantime, the Registrar (Compliance) shall seek a report from the District and
Sessions Judge concerned/ the trial court concerned through fax regarding the status of the trial,
the stage at which it is and also the reason for delay in framing of charge.'

4. Subsequently the matter was taken up on 16.01.2026 and the following order was passed by
this Court:

'1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Raja Chaudhary, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar, and Sri
Narendra Kumar, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State
and perused the record.

3. This matter is connected with two other applications being Application U/s 528 Bnss
No. 18833 of 2025 and Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 8780 of 2025 and listed today in the list of
Additional/Unlisted List-I. The matters were placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice in compliance
of the order dated 05.1.2026 for nominating a Bench to hear all the matters together and vide
order dated 14.1.2026 this Court has been nominated to hear the matters.

4. There is no appearance on behalf of the applicants in the connected matters even in the
revised list.

5. Since there is a request of Bar Association of not passing any adverse order today as
there is a massive traffic restrictions in the city due to Magh Mela which has been circulated to the
Court under the order dated 13.01.2026 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the matters are adjourned
for today.

6. Sri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, shall give notice in writing to learned counsels
appearing in both the said connected matters about this order along with copy of this order within
three days and produce its receipt by the next date.

7. List on 28.1.2026.
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that one application being
Application U/S 482 No. 1569 of 2025, Alok Singh vs. State of U.P. and another is also pending
before this Court in the present matter and the same be connected with this bail application so that
the same be also heard and decided together.

8. As prayed, connect with Application U/S 482 No. 1569 of 2025, Alok Singh vs. State of
U.P. and another. Since the said application is connected with this bail application, office shall
again seek nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice by the next date for nominating the Bench to
hear the matters together.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no other matter now as per his
instructions is pending before this Court.'

5. Office then placed the records of all the matters before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for
nomination on which vide order dated 24.1.2026 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice this Bench has been
nominated to hear all the matters. The matters are thus listed before this Bench under heading
Hon'ble Supreme Court Order (Expedited) cases in the Additional/Unlisted List-1.

6. The bail application is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant
Alok Singh was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.25998 of 2024 (Alok Singh vs. State of U.P.). The same reads as under:-

'1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the
records.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant'Alok Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under
Sections 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

3. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024 at 05:52 hours,
under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by original
complainant Naveen Kumar Srivastava against the applicant Alok Singh (Sub-Inspector), Prince
Srivastava (co-accused) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and
in the evening he used to collect money with relation to his business and comes back home in the
late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he
had collected Rs.50 Lakhs and when he along with his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were
coming with a bag at about 06:00 a.m., they were stopped by applicant Alok Singh and 3-4 people
in plain clothes, who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 Lakhs in
the same, on which there was some commotion and then the applicant took the money from him and
told him that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he would
implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50
Lakhs. He then pleaded that the money belongs to him and may be returned, on which they stated
to get it inquired and then return it to him. The co-accused Prince Srivastava then told Inspector
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
611
that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then
they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then
requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day.
Thereafter, on the next day they contacted him where the co-accused Prince Srivastava was also
present after which they were threatened and the applicant told him that they would not get the
money back and threatened them whereupon, they returned back home and told the family members
about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made,
after which they went to the police station and made a complaint requesting that report be lodged
and action be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a Sub-Inspector in the police
department and was performing his duties with utmost sincerity. During the period of election,
when the Code of Conduct was implemented in the course of which, he checked the first informant
and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava and recovered Rs.30 Lakhs from the first informant. It is
submitted that the money was returned on the third day of its recovery after being satisfied
regarding the same to be of the informant. It is further submitted that C.D.R. of the applicant, the
first informant Naveen Kumar Srivastava and brother of first informant Gagan Kumar Srivastava
would go to show' that on 03.04.2024 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., they were shown at different
locations and as such the story that the applicant stopped them and then took money from them is
false. It is submitted while placing the statement of the first informant that the story as narrated by
him is concocted story without any credible support. It is further submitted that the recovery of
money has been shown at 6:00 p.m. but the C.D.R. would show all the said three persons to be at
different locations. It is submitted that the service provider of mobile of the said three persons is
the same as has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer while noting the certificate under the
Evidence Act in the case diary. It is submitted that as such no offence is made out. It is further
submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 27 of the affidavit. The
applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the applicant is involved in the mater. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested
and Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that at the time of arrest
of the applicant, co-accused Prince Srivastava was also apprehended and Rs.14 Lakhs was
recovered from his possession. It is submitted that the recovery was done on 09.04.2024. It is
submitted that the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is further submitted that the
recovery of Rs.30 Lakhs which is huge amount has not been explained by the applicant. He further
submitted that insofar as the C.D.R. of the applicant and that of Gagan Kumar Srivastava is
concerned, the same would go to show that at the time of incident, they were at the same place. It is
further submitted that the C.D.R. although goes to show the location of the mobile but since the
waves cross each-other it cannot be conclusively established that persons were at the said place
since a minor movement or deviation from one place to the other may change the tower location. It
is submitted that bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was
recovered and has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the applicant is involved in the present matter and no such ground is pleaded and argued which
would go in his favour for making out a case for bail and hence the bail application be rejected.

6. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is
evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. The first informant Naveen
Kumar Srivastava and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were carrying money, which they had
collected out of their business which was detained by the applicant, in the presence of co-accused
Prince Srivastava who tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by the
applicant and the first informant was told to come on the next date. On the next date, the money
was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by the applicant and the co-accused.
Subsequently, on 09.04.2024 on the information of police informer, the applicant and the coaccused Prince Srivastava were apprehended and from the possession of the applicant Rs.30 Lakhs
was recovered whereas from the possession of co-accused Prince Srivastava Rs.14 Lakhs was
recovered. The recovery is of a huge amount and planting this huge amount for false implication, is
not possible. No reason whatsoever has been shown for false implication of the applicant. There is
no explanation at all coming from the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered
from his possession. The bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court vide
order dated 03.09.2024 from whose possession Rs.14 Lakhs was recovered. Insofar as, the location
from the C.D.R. is concerned, the same is matter of trial which is to be looked into and considered
by the trial court after evidence is recorded and the accused leads his defence for the same.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of
offence, the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant and the fact that
bail of co-accused Prince Srivastava has been rejected by this Court, this Court does not find it a
fit case to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is rejected.'

7. Subsequently the present second bail application has been filed by the applicant Alok Singh
before this Court with the following prayers:-

'It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be
pleased to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.-93 of 2024, under Sections 379, 406,
420, 506, 411, 389, 120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.-
Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned during the pendency of the
trial. So that justice be done.'

8. Application U/s 482 No. 1569 of 2025: Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, has
been filed by the applicant- Alok Singh with the following prayers:-

'It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be
pleased to allow the present application and set-aside the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.-2 Gorakhpur,
whereby the learned Court rejected the application under section 91 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant
and further be pleased to direct the Investigating Officer of the Case Crime No.- 93 of 2024 under
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
613
section 389, 406, 420, 506, 411, 120B I.P.C. and under section 13 of The Prevention of Corruption
Act P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gorakhpur to collect the CCTV footage of Police station Kotwali,
District-Gorakhpur since 12:05 am to 8.20 am on 9th April 2024 and the place of arrest of the
applicant where from the applicant was allegedly arrested (near Tarang Overbridge) by the police
and C.D.R. and G.P.S. Location, Call-I.D. and Internet Root Tracking of the police Team who have
arrested of the applicant, and preserve the same and also make the part of case diary and/or pass
such other and further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case. So that justice be done.'

9. On 20.1.2025 the following order was passed by this Court:-

'1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap
Singh learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned State counsel prays for three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Prayer is
allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder
affidavit, if any.

5. List on 25.02.2025.'

10. The matter was taken up and heard on 28.01.2026 by this Bench and the following order
was passed:-

'1. List revised.

2. Sri Raja Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar along with Sri
Narendra Kumar are present for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
State who have been heard and records perused.

3. Counter affidavit of the State has been filed which is on record to which a rejoinder
affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant which is also on record. Perused the entire
records.

4. Arguments concluded.

5. Judgment reserved.

6. Interim order, if any, shall continue till delivery of judgment.'

11. Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 8780 of 2025: Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another,
has been filed by the applicant- Vishal Tiwari with the following prayers:-
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the instant application by quashing the charge sheet dated 05.06.2024 and the cognizance
order dated 07.06.2024 alongwith passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge
(P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur as well as the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 898/2024,
(State vs. Alok Kumar Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 93/2024, under sections 389,
406, 420, 506, 411 IPC & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, presently pending before the Court of Additional
Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur, So that justice be done, otherwise
the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hard injury.

It is further prayed that during pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble
Court the further proceedings as well as effect and operation of cognizance order dated 07.06.2024
passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur
passed in Session Case No. 898/2024, (State vs. Alok Kumar Singh & others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 93/2024, under section 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC & 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur, presently
pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2,
Gorakhpur, may be stayed and/or pass any other further order which this Hon'ble court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; else the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.'

12. The matter was taken up and heard on 07.05.2025 by another Bench of this Court and the
following order was passed:-

'1-This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing
the charge-sheet dated 05.06.2024, cognizance order dated 07.06.2024 and proceedings of Sessions
Case No. 898 of 2024 (State Vs. Alok Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 93
of 2024, under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act read with Section 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 2, Gorakhpur.

2-Heard Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kabeer Tiwari, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P./opposite party
no. 1 and perused the record.

3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant/ opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on
09.04.2024 under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
against Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge, Police Post Beniganj), Prince Srivastava and their twothree companion alleging inter alia that he is a businessman and he used to return home after
collecting the money of his business by evening and deposit the same in bank next day. In this
sequence, on 03.04.2024 at about 06:00 A.M., he alongwith his brother keeping Rs. 50 Lakhs in a
bag were going on a motorcycle towards Harish Chauraha from Charan Lal Chauraha. When he
reached near the Police Post, Beniganj, he saw Inspector Alok Singh, In-charge, Police Post
Beniganj and three-four persons were standing there. Inspector signalled them to stop and inquired
about the bag. He disclosed that Rs. 50 Lakhs are kept in the bag. He recognized a person standing
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
615
with the inspector, whose name is Prince Srivastava. Thereafter, the Inspector took the bag and
went inside the police post and started counting the money and told them that the total money is Rs.
50 Lakhs and also threatened them to send jail in relation to offence of loot. Thereafter, Inspector
kept the money with him saying that he will inquire about the money. On the pretext of
investigation, inspector has taken entire amount extending threat to send them jail. Prince and his
companions whom he does not recognize, who were with them on that day too were standing there.
Thereafter his money was not returned.

4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that with regard to incident dated
03.04.2025, F.I.R. was lodged on 09.04.2025, in which applicant is not named. As per F.I.R.,
specific allegation of forcefully taking Rs. 50 Lakhs of the complainant is against Inspector Alok
Singh (Incharge, Police Post Beniganj) and Prince Srivastava. After F.I.R. Rs. 30 Lakhs have been
recovered from the possession of Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge, Police Post Beniganj) and Rs. 14
Lakhs have been recovered from the possession of Prince Srivastava on the same day. During
investigation complainant in his statement has made improvement stating inter alia that after taking
his money by the Inspector, Prince Srivastava took him and his brother to Prachand Singh, who is
resident of his locality, where Prachand Singh, Mukesh and Vishal Tiwari (applicant) met them and
told that he will get his money back but they will take commission on the money. Much emphasis
has been given by contending that if this statement of complainant is treated as true that on
03.04.2024, applicant demanded commission in lieu of getting his money back from the inspector,
then this fact and name of the applicant must have been mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 09.04.2025.
It is also pointed out that complainant in his statement has disclosed that his work is to transmit
money of party from one place to another. As such complainant has not come with clean hand.
Lastly, it is submitted that so far as case of the applicant is concerned, basic ingredients to
constitute an offence under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411, 120B IPC and Section 13 of
Prevention of Corruption Act are lacking and his case is distinguishable from the case of named
accused persons. Though in the statement of complainant, there is allegation of demand of
commission against the applicant, who is not a public servant but it is admitted fact that no
commission has been given by the complainant to the applicant.

5-Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer of the applicant by reiterating the
prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that applicant was also involved in the
matter and as per C.D.R. collected by the investigating officer, applicant was also found in touch
with named accused Alok Singh. It is also pointed out that apart from the present case, the
applicant has criminal history of two other cases bearing Case Crime No. 259 of 2013, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur and Case Crime No.
170 of 2017, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.

6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I find that case of the
applicant stands on different footing than that named co-accused Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge,
Police Post Beniganj) and Prince Srivastava.

7-Prima facie, matter requires consideration.
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8-Learned Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the State of
U.P./opposite party no.1.

9-Let a notice be issued to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

10-Steps be taken within a week.

11-Six weeks' time is granted to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed by the applicant within three weeks thereafter.

12-List this case on 07.08.2025.

13-Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant
Vishal Tiwari.'

13. Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 18833 of 2025: Prachand Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another, has been filed by the applicant- Prachand Pratap Singh with the following prayers:-

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the instant application by quashing the charge sheet dated 05.06.2024 and the cognizance
order dated 07.06.2024 alongwith passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge
(P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur as well as the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 898/2024,
(State vs. Alok Kumar Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 93/2024, under sections 389,
406, 420, 506, 411 IPC & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, presently pending before the Court of Additional
Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur, So that justice be done, otherwise
the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hard injury.

It is further prayed that during pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble
Court the further proceedings as well as effect and operation of cognizance order dated 07.06.2024
passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur
passed in Session Case No. 898/2024, (State vs. Alok Kumar Singh & others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 93/2024, under section 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC & 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur, presently
pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.2,
Gorakhpur, may be stayed and/or pass any other further order which this Hon'ble court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; else the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.'

14. The matter was taken up and heard on 26.5.2025 by another Bench of this Court and the
following order was passed:-

'1. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant with a
prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.06.2024, cognizance order dated 07.06.2024 and further
proceedings of Sessions Case No. 898 of 2024 (State Vs. Alok Kumar Singh and others) arising out
1 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.
617
of Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411 I.P.C. and Section 13 of
Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District
Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Gorakhpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant/ opposite party No. 2 lodged a first
information report on 09.04.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 389, 120B, 411, 406, 420,
506 I.P.C. and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act against Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge,
Police Outpost Beniganj), Prince Srivastava and their two-three companions alleging inter alia
that he is a businessman and he used to return home after collecting the money of his business by
evening and deposit the same in bank next day. In this sequence, on 03.04.2024 at about 06:00
A.M., he along with his brother keeping Rs. 50 lakhs in a bag was going on a motorcycle towards
Harish Chauraha from Charan Lal Chauraha. When he reached near the Police Outpost,
Beniganj, he saw Inspector Alok Singh, In-charge, Police Outpost Beniganj and three-four persons
were standing there. Inspector signalled them to stop and inquired about the bag. He disclosed that
Rs. 50 lakhs are kept in the bag. He recognized a person standing with the inspector, whose name
is Prince Srivastava. Thereafter, the Inspector took the bag and went inside the police outpost and
started counting the money and told them that the total money is Rs. 50 lakhs and also threatened
them to send jail in relation to the offence of loot. Thereafter, Inspector kept the money with him
saying that he will inquire about the money. On the pretext of investigation, inspector has taken
entire amount extending threat to send them jail. Prince and his companions whom he does not
recognize, who were with them on that day too were standing there. Thereafter his money was not
returned.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that with regard to the incident
dated 03.04.2025, F.I.R. was lodged on 09.04.2025, in which applicant is not named. As per F.I.R.,
specific allegation of forcefully taking Rs. 50 lakhs from the complainant is against Inspector Alok
Singh (Incharge, Police Outpost Beniganj) and Prince Srivastava. After lodging of F.I.R., Rs. 30
lakhs have been recovered from the possession of Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge, Police Outpost,
Beniganj) and Rs. 14 lakhs have been recovered from the possession of Prince Srivastava on the
same day. During investigation complainant, in his statement, has made improvement stating inter
alia that after taking his money by the Inspector, Prince Srivastava took him and his brother to
Prachand Singh (applicant), who is resident of his locality, where Prachand Singh, Mukesh and
Vishal Tiwari met them and told that they will get his money back but they will take commission on
the money. Much emphasis has been given by contending that if this statement of complainant is
treated as true that on 03.04.2024, applicant demanded commission in lieu of getting his money
back from the inspector, then this fact and name of the applicant must have been mentioned in the
F.I.R. dated 09.04.2025. It is also pointed out that complainant, in his statement, has disclosed that
his work is to transmit money of party from one place to another. As such complainant has not
come with clean hands. Lastly, it is submitted that so far as case of the applicant is concerned,
basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 389, 406, 420, 506, 411, 120B I.P.C. and
Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act are lacking and his case is distinguishable from the
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of named accused persons. Though in the statement of complainant, there is allegation of
demand of commission against the applicant, who is not a public servant but it is admitted fact that
no commission has been given by the complainant to the applicant.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer of
the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that
applicant was also involved in the matter and as per C.D.R. collected by the investigating officer,
applicant was also found in touch with named accused Alok Singh.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I find that case of the
applicant stands on different footing to that of named co-accused Inspector Alok Singh (Incharge,
Police Outpost, Beniganj) and Prince Srivastava.

7. Prima facie, matter requires consideration.

8. Learned Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the State of
U.P./opposite party no. 1.

9. Let a notice be issued to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

10. Steps be taken within a week.

11. Six weeks' time is granted to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed by the applicant within three weeks thereafter.

12. connect and list this case on 07.08.2025 along with Criminal Misc. Application under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. No. 8780 of 2025.

13. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant
Prachand Pratap Singh in the aforesaid case.

14.