RADHEY SHYAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant is in custody in connection with Case Crime No. 138 of 2017 under Section 386, 120B, 392 and 411 IPC and Section 7/13 & 8/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli, in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place on 8 June 2017 between 14:00 hrs. to 14:45 hrs. The first information report was lodged on the same date at about 15:35 hrs. by Tripurari Pandey a Police Officer. The allegation in the FIR is that the first informant while going to his office along with staff, upon reaching the petrol pump situated at Katshila, saw a truck bearing registration no. U.P. 62AT-7011 parked on the highway and two persons and a white government vehicle with hooter on the roof of the vehicle bearing registration no. U.P.65ET-8052 was parked. The persons were quarreling with the driver of the truck. Upon intervention, the truck driver, namely, Teju Yadav, informed that the two persons are threatening to kill him and are demanding illegal gratification. The two persons who intercepted the truck were wearing uniform of the transport department, upon enquiry they informed that at the behest of the Additional Road Transport Officer Enforcement (A.R.T.O.) i.e. R.S. Yadav (applicant), money was being collected from the truck owners/drivers. It is further alleged that upon search Rs. 16,850/- was recovered from their person, which according to the driver of the intercepted truck, belonged to him. Mobile phone of the persons was seized.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the case is false and fabricated; no evidence is available to implicate the applicant; the ingredients of the offence under sections of the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against the applicant; the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence; there is no evidence or independent witness; applicant has no concern with the alleged government vehicle parked on the spot; further, would urge that charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent court on 4 September 2017; cognizance taken thereon; applicant is languishing in jail since 12 June 2017; therefore, it is sought to be urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) has opposed the bail. Further, two applications, one on behalf of Sri Rakesh Nyayik, who claims to have assisted the Investigating Officer by providing evidence against the applicant and the second by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, prosecution witness, who claims to be the Vice President of Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, are opposing the bail application. Voluminous documents and materials running over 800 pages, has been brought on record to contend that it was placed before the Investigating Officer (I.O.), however, it has been brushed aside under the influence of the applicant. Both the applicants oppose the bail application.