The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has asserted that in a corruption prosecution founded on a prima facie chain of circumstantial material showing demand, facilitation, negotiation, transfer, and concealment connected with official functions, bail can be refused notwithstanding the filing of charge-sheet, absence of direct recovery from the applicant, lack of criminal history, or anticipated delay in trial, because these factors do not override the gravity of the accusation and the incriminating material collected during investigation.
The Court further held, in substance, that where intercepted communications, conduct during and after official search proceedings, presence at the meeting point of transfer, recovery of tainted amount from a co-accused immediately after the coordinated meeting, and recovery of removed official records from the applicant’s residence together disclose a prima facie common design, the case is not reducible to a mere departmental lapse; rather, it makes out a case for trial under conspiracy and corruption provisions, and therefore does not warrant exercise of discretion in favour of bail.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi extensively considered the settled principles governing grant of bail, particularly in economic offences and corruption cases, and noted that economic offences cannot be uniformly treated as a separate class for automatic denial of bail; that gravity of offence, prima facie material, possibility of tampering, and securing presence at trial remain material; and that filing of a charge-sheet or likely delay in trial by itself does not justify bail.
The Bench particularly noted that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through circumstantial evidence and not necessarily only by direct oral evidence. It also noted that under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even an attempt to obtain a bribe, including mere solicitation, is itself an offence, and that public servants who do not take the bribe directly but act through middlemen may also be punishable.
Applying those principles, the Bench found that the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie conspiracy involving CGST officials and private persons. It noted that after the searches, the applicant allegedly conveyed to the intermediary the extent of undeclared stock and incriminating material, assured favours, and facilitated return of keys to the proprietors. The Bench also noted the allegations that the applicant was present at the restaurant fixed for handover of the bribe amount, that the transfer of Rs. 69.94 lakhs was recovered immediately thereafter, and that the applicant was intercepted near the railway station soon after the operation.
The Bench further attached significance to the charge-sheet allegations that seizure documentation was intentionally left incomplete, that mandatory post-search reporting was not submitted in time, and that three missing sacks containing records of the searched firms were recovered from a room near the garage of the applicant’s residence. It also relied on the driver’s statement under Section 180 BNSS to prima facie support concealment of the sacks at the applicant’s house.
The Bench treated the intercepted communications between December 19 and December 25, 2025 as material showing structured negotiations of quantified amounts and indicating that the demand originally stood at Rs.1.5 crore, with any reduction dependent on the concurrence of co-accused Prabha Bhandari. It accepted the prosecution case, at the stage of bail, that the sequence of search, incomplete seizure formalities, removal of documents from lawful custody, quantified negotiations, arrangement of money, and recovery of Rs. 69.94 lakhs constituted a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances indicating a common design to demand, facilitate, and obtain undue advantage.
The Bench rejected the submission that Ajay Sharma alone, being custodian of records and recipient of money, bore the incriminating role. It observed that even public servants who do not directly take bribe can be tried if their involvement is established. It also found that this was not a case of mere lapse in discharge of official duties, but one disclosing trial-worthy allegations of active participation. The Bench additionally noted that 37 bars of silver had been recovered from the applicant’s house, that the applicant had allegedly arranged the meeting venue, and that sanction for his prosecution had already been granted.
Briefly, a bail application was filed by Anil Kumar Tiwari seeking release in a CBI case registered under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 316(5) of the BNS, arising out of an FIR. The prosecution case was that certain CGST officials at Jhansi, including the applicant, Deputy Commissioner Prabha Bhandari and Superintendent Ajay Sharma, in conspiracy with advocate Naresh Kumar Gupta and private persons, were indulging in corrupt practices by demanding bribes in return for extending favours in tax evasion matters.
The FIR alleged that after searches were conducted on December 18, 2025 at the premises of M/s Jai Ambe Plywood and M/s Jai Durga Hardware, huge undeclared stock and incriminating material relating to tax evasion were found. Thereafter, the proprietors of those firms allegedly attempted to settle the matter through Naresh Kumar Gupta, who contacted the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant informed him about the incriminating material, stated that “Madam” Prabha Bhandari was present at the search site, assured favours, and facilitated return of keys of the searched premises to the proprietors from his office.
The prosecution further alleged that negotiations for illegal gratification followed, including an alleged demand of Rs.1.5 crore, later discussed around Rs.70 lakhs. Surveillance and search memos recorded movement of Raju Mangtani carrying a white cotton bag, delivery of that bag into the Baleno car of Naresh Kumar Gupta, a meeting at Bikanerwala restaurant involving Naresh Kumar Gupta, Ajay Sharma, and the applicant, and later transfer of the bag from the Baleno car to Ajay Sharma’s Amaze car near railway tiraha. CBI officials intercepted the accused and recovered Rs.69.94 lakhs from Ajay Sharma’s car. The applicant was separately intercepted near Jhansi Railway Station and was later arrested.
The charge-sheet dated February 27, 2026 stated that the original search proposal had moved through official channels, that the applicant and others were authorized for the search, and that intercepted communications from the date of search onward showed immediate discussions regarding settlement. It further alleged that seizure documentation had been deliberately kept incomplete, mandatory post-search reporting was not done in time, and seized materials were unlawfully removed from official custody and kept at the applicant’s residence. Three missing sacks and other documents connected to the searched firms were allegedly recovered from a room near the garage of the applicant’s house.
The defence argued that Ajay Sharma was the custodian of the records and had taken the bribe money, that any lapse by the applicant in discharge of official duties could at best give rise to disciplinary proceedings, that Inspector Prashant Vishwakarma had also participated in the searches but was not arraigned as an accused, that the applicant had no criminal history, had cooperated in the investigation, and that the charge-sheet referred to 47 witnesses while sanction and CFSL report were still awaited. It was also argued that the applicant’s presence at the restaurant was coincidental since it belonged to a relative.
The CBI opposed bail by asserting that the applicant was actively supervising the search, was in continuous communication with co-accused, had arranged the meeting at a restaurant belonging to his family member, was physically present during the transfer of bribe money, and had concealed incriminating search material at his residence. It was also stated that sanction for prosecution of the applicant had already been granted, unlike in the case of one co-accused.
Appearances:
Pranjal Krishna, Suhaib Ashraf, for the Applicant
Aakash Prasad, for the Opposite Party
