# Manoj Kumar Niranjan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 355
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20055 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Achal Sachdev
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-niranjan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52925
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

12 All. Manoj Kumar Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy
the court that such non-compliance does
not affect its case against the accused, and
the standard of proof required would be
beyond a reasonable doubt."

8. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it would
be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in
depth at this stage because it is likely to
influence the trial of the accused. But, from
the perusal of the evidences, collected
during investigation so far, prima facie, the
involvement of the accused in the present
case cannot be ruled out. No reason is
found
to
falsely
implicate
the
applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no
good ground to release the applicantaccused on bail at this stage. All the
contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the applicant pertain to the merits of the
case and the same cannot be considered
while considering application for grant of
bail. This court is unable to form an
opinion at this stage that the accused has
not committed an offence.

9.
In
the
ultimate
conclusion,
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, gravity of the offence, severity of
punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail
is
made
out.
Accordingly,
the
bail
application is hereby rejected.

10. It is clarified that the observations
made regarding the bail application is
limited to the decision of the bail
application and any observations made
herein shall not effect the trial of the case.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20055 of 2025

Manoj Kumar Niranjan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of Constitution (read with s. 528 BNSS / s. 482
Cr.P.C.), the High Court could issue a writ of
mandamus directing the investigating authorities
to specifically consider and incorporate the
documents and evidence produced by the
petitioner during the course of investigation in a
disproportionate assets case u/s 13(1)(b) read
with s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and conclude the investigation within a
time-bound framework, on the ground of
alleged
non-consideration
of
exculpatory
material, violation of paragraph 107 of U.P.
Police Regulations, breach of Explanation-I to
Section 13(1) of Act, infringement of principles
of natural justice, and denial of petitioner's
fundamental right to speedy justice under
Article 21 of Constitution.

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.
13(1) (b), 13(2) - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s. 528 -The
petitioner,
presently
serving
as
an
Executive Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh
Jal
Nigam,
challenged
the
ongoing
investigation initiated against him under
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
registered by Vigilance Establishment,
Bareilly Sector - An Open Vigilance Inquiry
had earlier been instituted on 08.12.2020
to examine allegations of possession of
disproportionate assets during the check
period from 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017 -
Upon conclusion of inquiry, a report was
submitted recommending registration of a
case, after that sanction was granted on
16.12.2022 and impugned FIR was lodged
on 18.03.2023 alleging excess income to
the tune of ₹14,37,427/- from unknown
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sources - The petitioner asserts that
throughout the inquiry and subsequent
investigation
he
fully
cooperated,
furnished detailed documentary evidence
explaining his lawful sources of income
including salary, agricultural earnings,
rental income, and other receipts and
thereafter submitted representations to
competent
authorities
alleging
nonconsideration of such material in violation
of
paragraph
107
of
U.P.
Police
Regulations and Explanation-I to Section
13(1) of Act - Petitioner's grievance is that
despite
directions
dated
27.05.2024
issued by higher authority to consider his
representations and supporting evidence,
the investigating officer failed to duly
evaluate the same and has prolonged the
investigation for over two years, thereby
acting arbitrarily and in derogation of
principles of natural justice and the
petitioner's right to fair and expeditious
investigation under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Held: Perusal of record shows that an FIR
dated 18.03.2023 u/s 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,
1988
was
registered on the basis of inquiry report
conducted
by
Uttar
Pradesh
Vigilance
Establishment,
Bareilly
Sector
Bareilly,
in
compliance
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Vigilance
Establishment, confidential letter No.1464/39-120-2M(1)/2019 dated 08.12.2020, in regard to
an excess income of petitioner from unknown
sources of Rs.14,37,427/- for the check period
of 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017 - Respondent no.4
is Inspector/investigating officer of Vigilance
Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly - The
petitioner in his petition has admitted the fact
that he had received notice on 17.11.2023,
issued by office of respondent no.3 for getting
recorded his statement in investigation of the
crime and his statement was recorded on
20.11.2023 - The petitioner further stated that
he has submitted the entire relevant documents
and evidence pertaining to his source of income
during the check period before the respondent
no.3/
Superintendent
of
Police,
Vigilance
Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly - It is
clear that he has availed the opportunity of
putting his case before the investigating officer
and he had also provided all the relevant
evidence and documents for the check period in
question to the respondent no.3 - In his petition
the petitioner has stated that the respondent
no.4
had
refused
to
take
the
relevant
documents and evidence pertaining to source of
income of the petitioner during the check period
- In the light of averments made by petitioner in
his petition and the law laid down by Supreme
Court in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Case
(infra), it is not necessary to direct the
investigating
officer
to
reconsider
the
evidence/documents produced by the petitioner
in investigation of case - Thus, petition lacks
merit, dismissed. [Paras 5, 6, 8] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy,
(2018) 2 SCC 93 - followed

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950; Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Writ Petition; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 of
Constitution of India; s. 528 BNSS / s. 482
Cr.P.C.; Investigation; Investigating Officer; ss.
13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; Disproportionate Assets; Open Vigilance
Inquiry; Check Period; Vigilance Establishment;
Permission
for
Registration
of
FIR;
Representations;
Consideration
of
evidence/documents; Violation of mandatory
provisions; Explanation-I to s. 13(1); Paragraph
107 of U.P. Police Regulations; Principles of
Natural Justice; Arbitrary; Right to Speedy
Justice; Fundamental Right under Article 21;
Pending Investigation; Time-bound conclusion
of investigation; Interference in investigation;
Evidence intensive case; Trial stage; Opportunity
to explain source of income; Miscarriage of
justice; Mala fide; Dismissal of petition; Lack of
merit.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. - 20055 of 2025

From the FIR dated 18.03.2023 in Case Crime
No.0001 of 2023, lodged at Police Station
12 All. Manoj Kumar Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District
U.P. Vigilance Establishment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Prem Prakash

Adv. for the Respondent:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. Present writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner with following prayer:-

"(i) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent nos.2, 3, 4 to
consider the evidence/documents produced
by the petitioner in investigation of Case
Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section
13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment),
District
U.P.
Vigilance
Establishment
according to the provision of para-107 of
the
U.P.
Police
Regulation
and
in
pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2024 of
respondent no.1.

(ii) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondent
no.4
to
conduct and conclude investigation of Case
Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section
13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment),
District U.P. Vigilance Establishment,
within stipulated time as may be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court."

3. The petitioner in his petition has
submitted that on 15.10.2009 he was
appointed as Assistant Engineer in Uttar
Pradesh Jal Nigam and after getting
promotion now he is discharging his duties
as Executive Engineer. During entire
service period of petitioner neither any
illegalities nor irregularities have been
found against the petitioner or any
complaint were filed or made against him
by anyone and his entire service record was
unblemished.
On
08.12.2020
the
respondent no.1 has ordered for initiating
Open
Vigilance
Inquiry
against
the
petitioner regarding disproportionate asset
which is numbered as Open Inquiry No.183
of 2020 for the check period 01.01.2012 to
30.06.2017.
Thereafter
the
vigilance
inquiry was conducted and concluded by
the
Vigilance
Establishment,
Bareilly
Sector Bareilly and report was submitted
before the respondent no.1 regarding the
inquiry on 18.03.2021. The petitioner has
cooperated in the inquiry and had supplied
all the relevant documents regarding the
assets acquired during the check period,
including his salary, agriculture income,
income from rents and income received
from other sources etc., however inquiry
officer has not considered the same and
submitted report with recommendation for
permission of investigation under section
13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act as amended. On
16.12.2022 the respondent no.1 has granted
permission for registering the FIR and
conducting
investigation
under
the
provision of Prevention of Corruption Act,
hence the Vigilance Inquiry Officer has
lodged FIR on 18.03.2023 against the
petitioner which is registered as Case
Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section
13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act as amended, at Police
Station
Bareilly
Sector
(Vigilance
Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance
Establishment. Thereafter on 07.112023 the
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner has received notice issued by the
office of the respondent no.3 for getting
recorded the statement in investigation of
the aforesaid criminal case. In pursuance of
the notice dated 07.11.2023 the petitioner
got his statement recorded on 20.11.2023
and also submitted the entire relevant
documents/evidence
pertaining
to
the
source of income during the check period.
The investigating officer of the case i.e.
respondent no.4 also has not considered the
documents/evidences produced by the
petitioner
before
him
for
explaining
satisfactorily about the source of income of
the
petitioner.
In
such
compelling
circumstances the petitioner has moved the
representations before the respondent no.1
on 05.01.2024, 25.4.2024 and 01.05.2024
and also submitted entire evidence for
explaining source of income. Thereafter
respondent
no.1
considering
the
representations of petitioner has passed an
order on 27.05.2024 and directed the
respondent no.2 i.e. Director, Vigilance to
consider and include the points mentioned
in the representations and also consider the
evidence in the investigation of the
aforesaid
criminal
case.
During
the
investigation the respondent no.4 called for
report from the Tehsil of home district of
petitioner and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jalaun
District Jalaun has submitted detailed
report dated 14.10.2024, which showed
head wise income received from the
different crops and also mentioned his
income from cash crops. The impugned
FIR shows that the petitioner had earned an
amount of Rs.14,37,427/- in excess from
the valid source of income and in this
regard the petitioner in his statement before
the investigating officer has categorically
mentioned the income gain during check
period with evidence, which was not
considered during the open inquiry. This
was in violation of the provisions of
paragraph no.107 of the Police Regulation.
The mandatory provision of Explanation-I
of
section
13(1)
of
Prevention
of
Corruption Act had also not been complied
with.

4. Aggrieved by the act of respondent
no.4
the
petitioner
again
made
a
representation before the respondent no.1
on
21.07.2025,
citing
violation
of
mandatory rules and regulations that had to
be followed during investigation. It was
also stated that the act of respondent no.4
was arbitrary and against the principal of
natural justice. Non consideration of valid
sources of income of the petitioner will
adversely affect the petitioner in defending
his case. The petitioner is innocent and law
abiding person and has not committed any
offence as alleged. The investigation of the
aforesaid case is pending since 2023 and
about 2 years have passed but the
respondent no.4 was not intending to
conclude the investigation of the case. The
cardinal principle of law is that delay in
justice amounts to denial of justice and the
right to speedy justice is fundamental right
of the petitioner.

5. Perusal of record shows that an FIR
dated 18.03.2023 under section 13(1)(b)
read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 was registered on the basis of
inquiry report conducted by Uttar Pradesh
Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector
Bareilly, in compliance of the Uttar
Pradesh
Vigilance
Establishment,
confidential
letter
No.1464/39-1-202M(1)/2019 dated 08.12.2020, in regard to
an excess income of the petitioner from
unknown sources of Rs.14,37,427/- for the
check period of 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017.
The
respondent
no.4
is
Inspector/investigating officer of Vigilance
Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly.
12 All. Manoj Kumar Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
The petitioner in his petition has admitted
the fact that he had received notice on
17.11.2023, issued by the office of
respondent no.3 for getting recorded his
statement in the investigation of the
aforesaid case crime and his statement was
recorded on 20.11.2023. The petitioner
further stated that he has submitted the
entire relevant documents and evidence
pertaining to his source of income during
the check period before the respondent
no.3/ Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly.

6. From the above submission made
by the petitioner in his petition it is clear
that he has availed the opportunity of
putting his case before the investigating
officer and he had also provided all the
relevant evidence and documents for the
check period in question to the respondent
no.3. Nowhere in his petition the petitioner
has stated that the respondent no.4 had
refused to take the relevant documents and
evidence pertaining to source of income of
the petitioner during the check period.

7. The High Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or under Section 528
BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct the
investigating officer to collect the specific
evidence or accept particular documents
tendered by the accused. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nitya Dharmananda v.
Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93
has held that High Court in writ jurisdiction
or in exercise of jurisdiction under section
528
BNSS/
482
Cr.P.C.
cannot
micromanage
investigation
or
convert
themselves into investigating organizations.
The disproportionate asset cases under
section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption
Act,
1988
are
evidence
intensive. The prosecution must prove
assets disproportionate to the known
sources of income, and the accused can
explain the reason of the source of income
at the trial stage. If the accused earlier was
given
notice/opportunity
during
investigation
to
submit
explanation/document and he did so, the
refusal by the investigating office to accept
further/later documents does not normally
violate natural justice or fairness, as the
accused can produce them as defence
evidence during trial (313 CrPC/ 351
BNSS , defence witness under section 243
CrPC/ 266 BNSS in documents under
section
294
CrPC/
330
BNSS).
In
extraordinary circumstances, when refusal
to accept documents may cause miscarriage
of justice or is patently malafide and
arbitary, or violate rights under Article 21
of the India Constitution that the High
Court may issue directions to consider the
material evidence or conduct limited
further inquiry.

8. In the light of averments made by
the petitioner in his petition and the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nitya Dharmananda Case(Supra),
we do not find it necessary to direct the
investigating officer to reconsider the
evidence/documents
produced
by
the
petitioner in investigation of Case Crime
No.0001 of 2023, under section 13(1)(b)
read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment),
District U.P. Vigilance Establishment,
hence the relief no.1, as prayed by the
petitioner is declined.

9. In so far as the relief no.2 is
concerned,
giving
direction
to
the
investigating agencies to conclude the
investigation in time bound manner, where
the petitioner himself has repeatedly
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interfered
in
the
progress
of
the
investigation
through
his
repeated
representations, also cannot be granted to
the petitioner. Any directions of that kind
would also amount to interfering in the
investigation of the case.

10. In view of the above discussion,
we do not find any reason to interfere in the
matter and the petition thus lacks merit and
is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the instant petition is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 360
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1998

Vinai Kumar Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the legality of conviction and
sentence under Ss. 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and
specifically whether there was due compliance
of mandatory provisions of S. 50 and S. 52-A of
the NDPS Act in the facts of recovery of heroin
allegedly effected from the accused-appellant.

Headnotes
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Ss. 8, 21, 50 and
52A - Scope and applicability - Recovery of
heroin from the person of the accused -
Non-compliance
with
mandatory
safeguards - Scope of S. 50 - Appellant
was convicted for possession of 120
grams of heroin recovered from his pant
pocket during a raid at a hotel room -
Personal search - Mandatory requirement
of informing accused of his right under S.
50 NDPS Act - Search conducted by
Gazetted Officer who was part of raiding
party - Validity - Recovery of contraband
from
pocket
of
accused
-
Whether
voluntary handing over - Applicability of S.
50 - Sampling and inventory - Whether
non-compliance of S. 52-A vitiates trial
when primary physical evidence produced
- Evidentiary value of chemical examiner's
report under S. 293 CrPC - Burden of proof
- S. 106, Indian Evidence Act - Recovery
from hotel room.
Held: S. 50 of NDPS Act is a mandatory
provision, conferring a valuable right on the
accused
and
imposing
a
corresponding
obligation on the empowered officer to inform
the accused of his right to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate independent of
the raiding party - Merely informing the accused
that a Gazetted Officer is present as part of the
raiding party does not satisfy the mandate of S.
50, as the accused must be made aware of his
right to be searched before an independent
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - From the
testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, it is evident that
personal search of the accused-appellant did
take place, resulting in recovery of contraband
from the right pocket of his pant - The evidence
indicates that the contraband was recovered
after personal search, and not merely by
voluntary surrender so as to exclude the
applicability of S. 50 - Where primary physical
evidence of recovered contraband is produced
before the Court and proved during trial, noncompliance of S. 52-A relating to inventory and
certification by Magistrate does not vitiate the
trial - The report (Ex. Ka-10) is admissible under
S. 293 CrPC, and the defence having not
summoned the author, cannot dispute its
evidentiary value at appellate stage - Appeal
allowed and the impugned judgment passed by
the trial Court set-aside. (Paras 46 - 90) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat,
(2011) 1 SCC 609; Mainul Haque v. Union of
India, 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 18359; Ranjan
Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1262; Dharambir v. State, 2018
SCC OnLine Del 12305; Yusuf v. State,
(2024) 14 SCC 217 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1328; Mangilal v. State of M.P., (2023) 19