Ajay Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I., Ac-Ii, New Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3294 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2024 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Ajay Pratap Singh Son of Sri Ramanand Singh Resident of Village - Khushal Nagar Colony, Sector-A, Natiniyadai Mandir, P.S. - Shivpur, District - Varanashi (U.P.), at present Flat No.3A, Krishna Kunj Apartment, GD Mishra Path, Patliputra, Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through C.B.I., AC-II, New Delhi Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr. Ritwik Thakur Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nivedita Nirvikar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 15A of 2024 dated 03.10.2024 registered for the offence punishable u/ss 308(6), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner being a Dy SP in NIA, Patna along with other team members visited and searched the house of complainant Rakesh Ranjan Yadav on 19.09.2024 in connection with NIA case no. RC 24 of 2023 and seized cash amount and some weapons. It is further alleged that
2/5 during interrogation the petitioner started threatening the informant on the pretext of his arrest and demanded bribe of Rs. 3 crore. The said amount was negotiated and got reduced of Rs. 25,00,000/- lakhs and the petitioner directed the informant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs by end of day on 26.09.2024 at Mohania and provided a hand written slip mentioning a mobile no. 7352049209 to the informant with direction to contact some other persons on this mobile phone through whatsapp call. It is further alleged that the informant delivered the said amount to one Himanshu Singh through Yogesh and further the petitioner demanded Rs. 70,00,000/- and when the informant requested to express his inability to pay the bribe amount to the petitioner and reduce the demand to the tune of Rs.
35,00,000/- with direction to handover the said amount by the end of 01.10.2024 and provided hand written slip mentioned mobile no. 9771736540 with direction to contact this number through whatsapp. It is alleged that feeling aggrieved with the said demand the complainant made a complaint to the CBI on 02.10.2024. It is also alleged that the said complaint was verified by Vikas Ranaut, CBI Inspector and a trap team was constituted. It is further alleged that the bribe money of Rs.
3/5 Himanshu Singh at the gate of Magadh University, Gaya and trap team arrested and money was recovered from his possession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner had neither been caught on spot nor anything incriminating had been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that in R.C. Case No. 27/2023 NIA, the petitioner was not the sole authority and there were several AIO as well as immediate supervision authority who were monitoring day to day investigation in those matters and thus he has no jurisdiction either to exonerate anyone or to implicate anyone.
It is further submitted that the raid at the house of Rakesh Ranjan Yadav was conducted on the order of the Supervising Authority and after search, the said matter was immediately reported to the higher authority and several AIO were also accompanying and participating in the said raid. It is also submitted that except the statement of the informant and the alleged two words talks on the whatsapp between the co-accused Himanshu Singh and the petitioner, there is nothing available on record to substantiate his complicity in this case.
4/5 co-accused persons, Himanshu Singh and Dipu Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that the money which was recovered from the house of the petitioner's father does not belong to his father.The charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section 61(2) of the B.N.S and Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2024.
5. Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that the specific demand of bribe is against the petitioner and the same is available on record in form of transcripts of recording made by the complainant using spying device. It is further submitted that the petitioner has misused his official position as a Dy S.P. in N.I.A. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the coaccused, Himanshu Singh were in regular contact and the coaccused Himanshu Singh was arrested while receiving Rs. 20 lacs from the complainant during the trap proceedings. It is further submitted that Rs. 5.15 lacs were recovered from the locker of the petitioner's father at his Varanasi residence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above-
5/5 named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna in connection with R.C. Case No. 15A of 2024, with the condition ;- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T