Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a bail application and issued binding directions concerning court conduct and investigative integrity. The Court directed the release of the applicant on bail in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on findings that the applicant had never conducted the investigation in the underlying crime cited in the trap proceedings. Simultaneously, the Court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the investigating officer appearing in casual attire and directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue mandatory guidelines ensuring that police personnel attend court proceedings in prescribed uniform.

The judgment revealed discrepancies in investigation and criticized the investigating officer for failing to verify the role of the applicant before proceeding with criminal action. The decision was premised on the absence of any case diary or record indicating that the applicant was ever assigned or participated in the investigation of the foundational crime. As a result, the High Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out. Directions for future compliance and decorum were also included in the judgment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The applicant filed a bail application under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Mirzapur, District Mirzapur. The allegation stemmed from a complaint by Pramod Kumar Singh dated 20.02.2025, addressed to Inspector Vinay Singh, Anti-Corruption Organization, Mirzapur. The complaint alleged that in Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025, filed under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against unknown persons, the applicant, allegedly acting as investigating officer, demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 from the complainant to avoid naming him as an accused. The matter allegedly settled for Rs. 5,000.

Acting on this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, and a trap team was constituted. The complainant, accompanied by independent witnesses and the trap team, met the applicant at the designated location. Upon acceptance of the treated bribe amount of Rs. 5,000 by the applicant, he was arrested on the spot. An FIR was subsequently lodged by Inspector Vinay Singh on 22.02.2025.

The applicant contended through counsel that he was never the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025. At the time of the trap, the applicant was on assignment for Mahakumbh 2025 and did not handle the investigation of the foundational crime. Initially, Mr. Mahendra Ram Bharti was appointed as the investigating officer and prepared Case Diary No. 3 dated 11.01.2025. Though an order was passed on 10.01.2025 by In-Charge Inspector, P.S. Jigana, allocating further investigation to the applicant, he did not undertake any investigation owing to his assignment and thus did not prepare any portion of the case diary.

The defense stated that the complainant failed to specify the date and place of the alleged bribe demand, thereby further weakening the case. A significant point of contention arose regarding the identity of the actual investigating officer. The applicant argued that the entry in Case Diary No. 4 prepared by S.I. Chandra Shekhar on 28.02.2025 wrongly stated that the applicant had earlier conducted the investigation. This entry, it was argued, had no basis in official records.

To address this discrepancy, the Court summoned Inspector Krishna Mohan Rai, the investigating officer of the present corruption case, to appear in person with the complete case diary of Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025. On 29.05.2025, Mr. Rai appeared before the Court and acknowledged that the record of the case was never handed over to Shakeel Ahmad Khan for investigation. The case diary revealed that no documentation or entry had been made by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025.

This acknowledgement by the current investigating officer formed a crucial foundation for the Court’s finding that the applicant was falsely implicated and had never investigated the said crime. Based on the documentary evidence and oral submission, the Court accepted the applicant's contention of non-involvement.

The Court stated in clear terms, "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."

It further recorded, "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."

The Court stated, "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."

Additionally, the Court recorded, "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."

In response to the defense’s claim, the Court noted, "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."

The Court added, "The 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."

Regarding courtroom decorum, the Court observed, "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... The police officers are expected to wear prescribed uniform while appearing before Courts."

The Court deprecated such conduct and stated, "The appearance of any police officer wearing casual civil clothes in Court proceeding amounts to violation of decorum of the Court and undermining the Court proceedings."

Further, "Such conduct of Mr. Krishna Mohan Rai is deprecated by this Court and he is warned to be careful in future."

The Court ordered, "Let the applicant-Shakeel Ahmad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned."

It directed the applicant, "That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable."

Further, "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."

The Court stated, "That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity."

It added, "The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail."

Also Read: No Proximate Instigation Or Mens Rea Made Out | Bombay High Court Quashes FIR And Chargesheet Against Businessman Named In Suicide Note

On the issue of court decorum, the Court recorded, "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."

Further, "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."

Lastly, "Copy of this order be also sent to the Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P. for information. The compliance of this order shall be communicated to this Court within six weeks through Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Saurabh Sachan, Shubham

For the Respondents: Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

Case Title: Shakeel Ahmad vs. State of U.P.

Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:92783

Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10409 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh

[Read/Download order]