Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Superintendent Of Police U.P. Vigilance Establishment Lko.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30758 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4292 of 2024 Applicant :- Dhanendra Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Superintendent Of Police U.P. Vigilance Establishment Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmal Pandey learned A.G.A for the State respondent.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant-Dhanendra Kumar Pandey is in jail since 20.03.2024 in Case Crime No.0008 of 2024, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow Sector, District-Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the informant Diship Kumar who is Accountant submitted an application dated 05.03.2024 to the Senior Superintendent of Police that his company in the financial year 2021-22 and 2022- 23 claimed a refund of total Rs.19,47,778/- and applied for the refund as IGST, at the trade tax department of goods and service tax sector 20, where the authorized officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner is the present applicant who demanded Rs.2,00,000/- bribe for refund.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the refund was applied on 26.02.2024 as per online procedure but the accused denied for refund and informant wanted to get the applicant arrested while taking bribe. On the basis of the said allegations dated 05.03.2024, the directions were given for discreet verification regarding bribe and after the approval of the State Government, the trap team was formed consisting of two witnesses thereafter, allegedly said team had prepared pre-
trap proceedings and thereafter, they proceeded towards the office of the accused. The team consisting of informant and witnesses reached at third floor of the office, then informant entered in to a room on the right hand side where the name plate of the present applicant as Deputy Commissioner was fixed and informant entered into the room alone, no witness, no police personnel entered into the officer room of the present applicant to watch the correctness of proceedings and to hear the correct conversation of demand and acceptance of bribe. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of alleged transaction as claimed by informant, no witness or police officer were present with him and that all police persons and independent witnesses were standing in disguise near the bathroom and the stairs at the end of gallery and were kept waiting for informant and after some time, the informant who entered alone in the room of applicant, came outside and gave signals to the team, then all team members entered into the cabin of accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it has been falsely mentioned in the FIR that when the team entered, then one person standing at the office table was keeping wads of currency notes in the drawer, then the team apprehended the said person while he was dealing with the bribe amount. Thereafter, some false procedure has been recorded for post-trap which is altogether false and incorrect and applicant strongly denies the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the case in hand, the online application dated 26.02.2024 submitted by the informant was already rejected on 28.02.2024 and another application on 12.03.2024 on account of deficiencies memo issued online in filing of application. The process is face-less through online and is automated process, no officer could know that which application he would be dealing in-fact. The refund is calculated as per the circulars and the GST Act, 2017. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that after disqualification in the first round, the informant again uploaded two second applications dated 15.03.2024 for refund of tax. The said documents were in fact had been login with the present applicant-Deputy Commissioner on 18.03.2024 at 3.25 p.m. and other applications were login with Assistant Commissioner on 19.03.2024 at 2.06 p.m.
Sri Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the entire service record of the present applicant has been unblemished and no complaint of any kind whatsoever
has been ever lodged against the present applicant and the applicant is absolutely is unaware as to how he has been falsely implicated, this case is apparently a case of false implication. The applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.
Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail and tried to defend the prosecution case but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of Sri Purnendu Chakravarty learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Dhanendra Kumar Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.