SABHA NAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Sabha Nand Singh is a Steno in C. M. O. Office, Jaunpur. He is an accused of Crime No. 1139 of 2006, under Section 7/13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur. His bail prayer was rejected on 6-1-2007 by Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Varanasi and hence he has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr. P. C. for being released on bail in the aforesaid crime number for the aforesaid offence under Section 7/13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant are that doctor Dev Prakash Singh runs Shivangi Diagnostics Centre in Mardanpur, District Jaunpur having registration No. JNP/al/0072 and the said registration is valid upto April 2007. Doctor Dev Prakash Singh wanted to change the name of his clinic as Shivangi Hospital and for that purpose he addressed a letter to C. M. O. Jaunpur on 5-12-2006 and dispatched it through his Manager Vikash Rai. The said Manager informed doctor Devi Prakash Singh that Steno to C. M. O. S. N. Singh, the present applicant, has refused to accept the application for change of good will of the Diagnostic Centre and had called him against on 7-12-2006. After this applicant called the Manager on 7th, 8th, 11th December, 2006 but did not accept the application for change of Diagnostic Centre's name. It is further alleged that on 12-12-2006 even though the present applicant accepted the application but started demanding Rs. 1,000/- without which, the applicant informed the Manager that the work will not be done. On being shown some displeasure by Manager the applicant informed him that without the said charge nothing will happen and with this the present applicant returned the application. However, Doctor Dev Prakash Singh sent back the Manager instructing him to inform the applicant that he should accept the application and given the receiving and doctor Dev Prakash Singh will contact C. M. O. in this respect. Further allegation of the prosecution is that even on this the application of Doctor Dev Prakash Singh was not accepted by the present applicant and when Doctor Singh contacted the applicant then he was informed that a barter like system of give and take will get his work done. Further allegations are that the applicant warned the Doctor that in future also many of his work will be installed and the Doctor will have to run morning and evening for getting his work done. Since doctor Dev Prakash Singh never wanted to pay the bribe he decided to get the applicant trapped and hence made a complaint to Nanad Lal Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Varanasi on which a trap was laid. Further allegation of the prosecution is that the formalities of the trap was completed and the number of currency note were taken down and the small signatures were put on the currency note. After completing the usual formalities of putting Phenolphthalein power on the currency notes the trap was executed and the applicant was caught red handed taking bribe from Doctor Dev Prakash Singh. With the said allegation the applicant has pressed for his bail after the same was rejected by the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. on the other hand contended that in this case there was no need to obtain sanction before lodging of the F. I. R. and that the applicant was apprehended red handed by the trap party while accepting bribe. It is further contended that there was no enmity between doctor Dev Prakash Singh and the present applicant and therefore, there was no reason for doctor Dev Prakash Singh to get the applicant falsely implicated. LEARNED A. G. A. further contended that if the applicant would not have demanded money there was no earthly reason for doctor Dev Prakash Singh to get a trap laid. LEARNED A. G. A. further contended that in this case the trap party consisted of independent persons also who have supported the prosecution version and the correctness of the procedure followed to lay the trap raid again the applicant. He further submitted that what amount of money was demanded by the applicant that can be explained only by the applicant himself and not by any other person. He submitted that there is no reason to grant bail to the applicant and since it is a case of corruption by a public servant, therefore, the applicant should not be released on bail.