# Shakeel Ahmad v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 59
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10409 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakeel-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-53419
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Bhartiya
Nyay
Sanhita(BNS)
2023-Sections
303(2),
317(2) -Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS),2023-Section
479-Mines
and
Minerals
Act,2023-Sections
4/21
&
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act,1984-Section
3-Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1988-Section
7-The
applicant caught red-handed accepting a
bribe
of
Rs.
5000/-The
prosecution
contended the applicant demanded bribe
to not implicate the complainant in an
earlier
case
where
he
was
the
investigating officer-The applicant denied
conducting any investigation in that caseUpon reviewing the case diary the court
found that there was no documentary
evidence
showing
applicant
ever
investigated the earlier matter-The court
held that the investigation was not
conducted fairly and the applicant has
been falsely implicated-Consequently, bail
was granted with conditions.(Para 1 to
16)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

## Text

5 All. Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
59
(2025) 5 ILRA 59
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10409 of
2025

Shakeel Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Gaurav Kumar
Srivastava, Saurabh Sachan, Shubham

Counsel for the Opposite Party:

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Bhartiya
Nyay
Sanhita(BNS)
2023-Sections
303(2),
317(2) -Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS),2023-Section
479-Mines
and
Minerals
Act,2023-Sections
4/21
&
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act,1984-Section
3-Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1988-Section
7-The
applicant caught red-handed accepting a
bribe
of
Rs.
5000/-The
prosecution
contended the applicant demanded bribe
to not implicate the complainant in an
earlier
case
where
he
was
the
investigating officer-The applicant denied
conducting any investigation in that caseUpon reviewing the case diary the court
found that there was no documentary
evidence
showing
applicant
ever
investigated the earlier matter-The court
held that the investigation was not
conducted fairly and the applicant has
been falsely implicated-Consequently, bail
was granted with conditions.(Para 1 to
16)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1-Heard learned counsel for the
applicant
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
and perused the record.

2-The instant bail application has been
preferred by the applicant-Shakeel Ahmad
with a prayer to release him on bail in Case
Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, Police
Station Anti Corruption Mirzapur, District
Mirzapur during the pendency of trial.

3-As per the prosecution case in brief,
the complainant-Pramod Kumar Singh
made a complaint dated 20.02.2025 to the
Inspector Vinay Singh, Anti Corruption
Organization, Mirzapur making allegations
inter alia that on 09.01.2025, a first
information report was lodged by Mr.
Deepak Kumar Rajbhar at Case Crime No.
0008 of 2025, under Sections 303(2),
317(2) of B.N.S., Section 4/21 Mines and
Minerals Act and Section 3 of Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act against
unknown person, in which applicantShakeel Ahmad was the investigating
officer, who demanded bribe of Rs.
15,000/- from complainant-Pramod Kumar
Singh for not revealing his name as an
accused in that case but the matter was
settled for Rs. 5,000/-. F.I.R. further alleges
that
taking
cognizance
of
the
said
complaint, a preliminary enquiry was
conducted for prima facie satisfaction to
proceed further in the matter. On being
satisfied with the opinion given in the
enquiry report, a trap team was constituted
to catch the applicant red handed while
accepting bribe. Accordingly the trap team
along with independent witnesses and
complainant proceeded to the designated
place to execute the trap proceeding. It is
the case of the prosecution that the
complainant took out the treated bribe
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notes Rs.5000/- from his pocket and gave
to the applicant. The moment the applicant
accepted bribe, the trap team nabbed him
red handed. Thereafter Mr. Inspector Vinay
Singh,
Anti
Corruption
Organization,
Mirzapur got a first information report
lodged in the matter on 22.02.2025.

4-The submissions of learned counsel
for the applicant are as under:-

i-The applicant was not the
investigating officer of Case Crime No. 8
of 2025, therefore, there was no occasion
for the applicant to make any demand of
bribe as alleged in the F.I.R. dated
22.02.2025.

ii-No date and place of alleged
demand of bribe by the applicant has been
disclosed by the complainant.

iii-The F.I.R. of Case Crime No.
8 of 2025 was registered on 09.01.2025 and
investigation of the said case was handed
over to Mr. Mahendra Ram Bharti.

iv-Thereafter
In-Charge
Inspector, P.S. Jigana, District Mirzapur
passed an order dated 10.01.2025, whereby
he allotted further investigation of Case
Crime No. 08 of 2025 to the applicant (S.I.
Shakeel Ahmad). Since the applicant was
assigned duty in Mahakumbh, 2025,
therefore he was unable to conduct the
investigation. Accordingly, he did not
conduct any investigation of the said case
and earlier investigating officer, Mr.
Mahendra Ram Bharti has prepared the
Case Diary No. 3 dated 11.01.2025.

v-On the strength of aforesaid
facts, much emphasis has been given by
contending that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case.

vi-It is also pointed out that vide
order of this Court dated 15.04.2025, the
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption
Organization, Varanasi was directed to
ensure the production of the complainant
before the trial court for recording his
statement, but the same has also not been
done as the concerned trial court is running
vacant.

vii-Lastly it is submitted that the
applicant is languishing in jail since
22.02.2025, therefore, he is entitled to be
released on bail.

5-In order to clarify the aforesaid
factual aspect of the matter, as argued by
learned counsel for the applicant, on
28.05.2025 following order was passed by
this Court:-

"As per the prosecution case in
brief, allegation against the applicant is
that a first information report was lodged
by Mr. Deepak Kumar Rajbhar on
09.01.2025 at Case Crime No. 0008 of
2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S.,
4/21 Mines and Minerals Act and Section 3
of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act against unknown person, in
which present applicant-Shakeel Ahmad
was the investigating officer. Since the
F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person,
therefore, applicant demanded a bribe of
Rs. 15,000/- from Pramod Kumar Singh
(complainant of the present case) on the
pretext that he will not include his name as
an accused in Case Crime No. 0008 of
2025, accordingly, the said matter was
settled for Rs. 5,000/-. It is the case of the
prosecution that the applicant was caught
red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.
5,000/-.

The main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for the applicant is that
the applicant has not conducted the
investigation of aforesaid Case Crime No.
0008 of 2025, therefore, there was no
occasion for the applicant to make demand
of alleged bribe.
5 All. Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
61

On putting query in this regard,
learned A.G.A. is not in a position to
apprise
the
Court
about
the
said
submission raised on behalf of the
applicant.

In view of the above, Mr. Krishna
Mohan Rai, Inspector Anti Corruption
Organization,
Mirzapur
who
is
the
investigating officer of this case being Case
Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, Police
Station Anti Corruption Mirzapur, District
Mirzapur is directed to appear in person
before this Court tomorrow (29.05.2025) at
10:30 a.m. along with complete case diary
of Case Crime No. 8 of 2025 to assist
learned A.G.A.

Put up this case for tomorrow i.e.
29.05.2025 as fresh.

Registrar (Compliance) of this
Court as well as learned A.G.A. shall
communicate this order to Superintendent
of Police, Mirzapur as well as Mr. Krishna
Mohan Rai, Inspector Anti Corruption
Organization, Mirzapur today itself."

6-Pursuant to aforesaid order of this
Court, Mr. Krishna Mohan Rai, Inspector,
Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur
who is the investigating officer of the
present case being Case Crime No. 01 of
2025 is personally present before this Court
and produced the case diary of Case Crime
No. 08 of 2025 for perusal of the Court.

7-On going through the case diary of
Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, I find that on
11.01.2025, S.I. Mahendra Ram Bharti, has
conducted the investigation and also
prepared Case Diary No. 3. Thereafter,
Case Diary No. 4 was prepared / written on
28.02.2025 by S.I. Chandra Shekhar and he
has mentioned that earlier investigation of
this case was being conducted by S.I.
Shakeel Ahmad Khan (applicant), whereas
there is nothing on record to indicate that
the present applicant has ever prepared
/written any paper of case diary, as such,
wrong averment has been mentioned in
Case Diary No. 4 dated 28.02.2025 by the
second investigating officer-S.I. Chandra
Shekhar that earlier investigation of this
case was being conducted by the applicant.

8-Mr. Krishna Mohan Rai, Inspector,
Anti Corruption Organization, Mirzapur
also admits before this Court that the record
of this case was also never handed over to
Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan (applicant) for
investigation.

9-Having heard the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and
investigating officer of the present case and
perusing the record, I find that Mr. Krishna
Mohan Rai, investigating officer of this
case has not conducted fair investigation
and he did not take pain to verify
impartially whether the applicant-Shakeel
Ahmad Khan had ever conducted any
investigation in Case Crime No. 8 of 2025.
In view of the above, I find force in the
submission of learned counsel for the
applicant that applicant never conducted
investigation of case crime no. 08 of 2025
and no record was given to him.

10-Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as keeping in
view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused and submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties as well as
status of trial of the applicant as noted above,
this Court is of the view that the applicant has
prima-facie made out case for bail. Hence, the
bail application of the applicant is hereby
allowed.

11-Let the applicant-Shakeel Ahmad, be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
number on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions which are being imposed
in the interest of justice:-

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate
in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall
regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

(ii) That the applicant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) That after his release, the
applicant shall not involve in any criminal
activity.

(iv)
The
identity,
status
and
residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned before the release of the
applicant on bail.

12-Before parting with the case, it is relevant
to mention that pursuant to order of this Court
dated 28.05.2025, Mr. Krishna Mohan Rai,
Inspector,
Anti
Corruption
Organization,
Mirzapur, who is investigating officer of this case
appeared before this Court without wearing his
proper uniform, as prescribed to his post. He
appeared before this Court wearing coloured shirt
and pant, whereas he has come to this Court in
capacity of investigating officer to attend Court
proceedings and to assist the learned State
counsel. The police officers are expected to wear
prescribed uniform while appearing before Courts.
The appearance of any police officer wearing
causal civil clothes in Court proceeding amounts
to violation of decorum of the Court and
undermining the Court proceedings. Learned
A.G.A. appearing for the state also apprised this
Court that when he interrupted Mr. Rai for not
coming in proper uniform, he became angry and
his gesture towards him was inappropriate. Such
conduct of Mr. Krishna Mohan Rai is deprecated
by this Court and he is warned to be careful in
future.

13-In view of the observations made in
paragraph no. 12 of this order, the Director
General of Police, U.P. Lucknow is directed to
look into the matter and issue necessary
directions/guidelines to all concerned that
whenever they appear before any Court for
judicial function in official capacity, they should
wear proper uniform prescribed to their posts.

14-Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is
directed to communicate this order to the
Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow
within a week for compliance of the directions
mentioned in paragraph no.13 of this order.

15-Copy of this order be also sent to the
Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P. for
information.

16-The compliance of this order shall be
communicated to this Court within six weeks
through Registrar
General, High Court,
Allahabad.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 62
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12896 of
2024
With
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1107 of 2025
with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1100 of 2025
with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36927 of
2024

Neyaz Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party