Court Highlights Serious Allegations and Necessity for Thorough Investigation in Syndicate Operating Illegal Truck Passage
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has denied anticipatory bail to Rajeev Kumar Bansal, a government official facing serious allegations of corruption. The judgment, delivered by Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, underscores the court's stance on corruption cases, emphasizing the necessity for thorough investigations due to the magnitude and scale of the alleged offenses.
Rajeev Kumar Bansal, an ARTO in the Transport Department, was implicated in a syndicate purportedly facilitating the passage of overloaded trucks transporting sand and gravel without valid permits, resulting in substantial losses to the state revenue. The prosecution claims that illegal gratifications were collected from truck owners and drivers, with several articles, including mobile phones and notebooks containing vehicle details, recovered from apprehended persons.
The court highlighted that anticipatory bail in corruption cases is unwarranted unless exceptional circumstances, such as false, frivolous, or politically motivated allegations, are demonstrated. It was noted that mere presumption of innocence or an unblemished service record does not automatically warrant anticipatory bail, especially when serious allegations and prima facie evidence of complicity exist.
Justice Pawar emphasized the need to balance public justice with individual liberty, stating, "The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice."
The judgment detailed the evidence against Bansal, including telephonic conversations with co-accused individuals and recovery of incriminating materials. The court observed that the applicant's conduct, including discrepancies in residential addresses provided to the investigating agency, reflects non-cooperation with the investigation.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the judgment reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and is to be granted only in exceptional cases. It underscored the dangers of corruption, quoting that "Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate."
The court concluded that the allegations against Bansal were serious, and the thorough investigation was imperative given the complexity and scale of the syndicate's operations. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to combating corruption and ensuring accountability in public service.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in corruption cases is unwarranted unless exceptional circumstances such as false, frivolous, or politically motivated allegations are demonstrated.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 59, 61(2), 316(5), 318, 303(2), and 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
