HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1956 of 2025 Reserved on 17.12.2025 Delivered on 19.12.2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.: 660 of 2025, Under Sections: 59, 61(2), 316(5), 318, 303(2), and 317(2) BNS and Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station: MANDIYAON, District: LUCKNOW NORTH, (COMMISSIONERATE LUCKNOW). Heard Shri Purnendu Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Snigdha Singh, learned counsel the applicant and Shri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that a racket was being operated for facilitating the passage of overloaded trucks transporting sand and gravel without valid permits, causing loss to the State Exchequer. Several articles, including mobile phones and notebooks containing vehicle details, were recovered from the apprehended persons. On 11.11.2025, Abhinav Pandey was apprehended, who allegedly confessed to coordinating the illegal passage of overloaded vehicles in connivance with certain RTO/PTO officials and their subordinate staff, after collecting illegal gratification from truck owners and drivers. Acting on his disclosure, an overloaded truck was intercepted, and the driver stated that payments had already been made to transport officials through Abhinav Pandey. The FIR further alleges that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Snigdha Singh, Nadeem Murtaza Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajeev Kumar Bansal @ Raju Bansal Arto Lko. .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) bribes were paid to subordinate transport staff, including a person working under the Applicant, to ensure unchecked movement of overloaded vehicles. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been registered in a casual and mechanical manner. Although the prosecution alleges the involvement of one Diwan Anuj, a subordinate officer working under the applicant, who is posted as ARTO in the Transport Department, Lucknow, the FIR does not assign any specific role or overt act to the applicant. The applicant has no connection with the alleged incident and had been posted at the said place only about four months prior to the lodging of the FIR. It is further submitted that the alleged illegal transactions reflected in the notebook recovered from the truck of Abhinav Pandey have no nexus whatsoever with the applicant. The FIR has been lodged solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused, without any independent material against the applicant. No direct or role is assigned to the applicant, and even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against him. The essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS are absent. There is no material to suggest any entrustment of property to the applicant in his capacity as a public servant, and therefore, no question arises of dishonest misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that verbatim FIRs have been registered by the Special Task Force in several districts against officers of the Transport Department on identical allegations; however, in all such cases, the offences invoked are punishable only up to seven years. In contrast, in the present case, being Crime No. 660 of 2025, the applicant has been selectively proceeded against by additionally invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which is punishable with life imprisonment, without any supporting material on record. It is contended that the said provision has been mechanically and arbitrarily applied merely to enhance the gravity of the offence, which suggests that the applicant is being differently treated by the STF in this case. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to various orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 11138 of 2025, 11793 of 2025, and 11103 of 2025, wherein the writ petitions filed by the accused persons were disposed of in light of the law laid down by the NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, as the offences in those cases were punishable up to seven years. However, without assigning any reason, the present FIR has been lodged by additionally invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which is punishable with life imprisonment. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a government officer. He has an unblemished service record and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation as and when required. It is also submitted that the applicant is presently on medical leave, and any inability of the police to obtain his residential address from departmental records cannot be construed as the department shielding him or acting in collusion. No accommodation has been provided to the applicant, and the absence of residential details in departmental records ought not to be treated as a circumstance adverse to him, but rather as a compelling reason to protect his liberty so that he may assist the investigation without apprehension of arrest. Learned counsel further submits that no offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. Although these offences are punishable up to seven years, there is no allegation of any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the applicant from any transporter, truck driver, or intermediary. There is also no allegation that the applicant aided, abetted, instigated, or conspired in the demand or acceptance of any undue advantage. Shri J.S. Tomar, learned AGA, opposed the submissions; however, he could not dispute as to why in other FIRs involving similar allegations, Section 316(5) BNS has not been invoked. Neither the ACP, Aliganj, who is present before the Court, nor the learned AGA could explain the material on the basis of which Section 316(5) BNS has been invoked against the applicant. The ACP, Aliganj, present here has submitted that it is a gang operating in the concerned department and that there is an alleged independent witness, namely Ashutosh Dubey, who has implicated the applicant along with co- accused persons. It was further submitted that the availability of an independent witness in such cases is rare. In response, learned counsel for NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 3 the applicant contended that Ashutosh Dubey cannot be termed an independent witness and is, in fact, an accomplice. Perused the record. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR could not have been registered under Section 316(5) BNS is concerned, the same is patently misconceived, inasmuch as the applicant is a public servant entrusted with a public office. The allegations are that the applicant, by indulging in commission of offence alleged offence, has betrayed the trust reposed in him with regard to his office. The provision deals with the betrayal of trust concerning property with harsher penalties for those holding positions of grater responsibilities in public office. Upon perusal of the record and the extract of case diary placed by the learned AGA, it prima facie emerges that in the present case the complainant seized a truck bearing registration No. UP78TD7880. From the said truck, the named accused Kapil produced a weighbridge slip reflecting a gross weight of 44,370 kg. However, subsequent to the arrest and recovery, the overloaded morang truck was re-weighed at a weighbridge, where its weight was found to be 66,340 kg. Thus, prima facie, it is alleged that overloaded trucks were being cleared pursuant to a criminal conspiracy by deliberately showing lesser weight, thereby causing loss to the State revenue. The independent witness Ashutosh Dubey, in his statement, has duly corroborated the prosecution version. From the co-accused Abhinav Pandey, a mobile phone was recovered and three copies of screenshots of chat conversations were seized, which reveal facts relating to the plying of overloaded vehicles. These chats have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. During the period of his posting, the applicant was found to have had telephonic conversations with co-accused Manoj Bhardwaj on 211 occasions between 15.06.2025 to 12.11.2025, with another co-accused Anuj Kumar (subordinate Diwan of the applicant) on 292 occasions, and conversations between Manoj Bhardwaj and co-accused Girijesh (subordinate Diwan of Manoj Bhardwaj) on 289 occasions. It has further surfaced that co-accused Ritesh Kumar Pandey @ Shanu also in conversation with co-accused Anuj Nishad. Additionally, co-accused Girijesh was found to be in active NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 4 communication with co-accused Abhinav Pandey, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Ritesh Kumar Pandey @ Shanu, Manoj Bhardwaj, and Anuj Kumar Nishad. It has also been found that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation. He furnished his Aadhaar card mentioning the address as Flat No. 115, Galna Road, Bihav Whites Apartment, Nirbhay Nagar, Khandari, Agra, whereas the actual addresses obtained from the Transport Commissioner reveal that ARTO Shri Rajeev Bansal, son of Ramesh Chandra Bansal, is a resident of Gandhi Gali, Atrauli, Aligarh, and 63-C, Green Estate Colony, AZ Developers, Bypass Road, Muzaffarnagar. The conduct of the applicant has been duly noted by the learned trial court while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced below:- "7. ्ऺस्तुत मामले में उ्तर ्ऺदेश एस०टी०एफ० की यह सूचना ्ऺाप्त होने पर िक उ्तर ्ऺदेशकी िविभन्न जनपदों में पिरवहन िवभाग के अिधकािरयों की िमली भगत से ओवरलोड वाहनों से मोरंग व िग्टी आिद का पिरवहन कराकर सरकार को राजस्व की ्षित पहुंचायी जा रही है, के आधार पर एस०टी०एफ० की टीम ्षारा िदनांक 11.11.2025 को खदरी मोड से सीतापुर की ओर जाते हुए ़्ेजा गाडी नं० यू०पी० 32 एम०क्यू० 3139 के वाहन चालक अिभनव पांडे को पकडा गया िजसने पूछताछ में यह बताया िक वह उसका सगा भाई 61 िरतेश कु मार आर०टी०ओ० व पी०टी०ओ० अिधकारी व उनके अिधनस्थों से िमली भगत कर िविभन्न ्िांसपोटों व डम्पर मािलको से संपकर् कर िगटटी व भोरंग की ओवरलोड पिरवहन कराकर धनाजर्न करते है। िजसमें ्ऺित ढक पांच से छः हजार रूपये ्ऺित तक उन अिधकािरयों का पहुंचा देते है तथा सात हजार रूपये ्ऺित ढक नािलको व ्िांसपोटों से लेते है। उसने यह भी बताया िक इसी कम में आज रात में गाडी नं० यू०पी० 78 डी०टी० 7880 ओवरलोड मोरंग लेकर आई०आई०एम० ितराहे के पास आने वाला है। उ्व सूचना के आधार पर आई०आई०एम० ितराहे के पास रात एक बजे उपरो्व ढक ओवरलोिडग सिहत उसके चालक किपल पु्ऴ पन्ना लाल के साथ पकडा गया। ढक चालक ने पूछताछ में बताया िक उसका ओवरलोडेड वाहन हमीरपुर की खदान से उ्तर ्ऺदेश के िविभन्न जनपदों में चलता है तथा एक के मािलकों ने उसे बताया है िक उसने हमीरपुर से लखनऊ पूवा्लचल तक आर०टी०ओ० िवभाग के कमर्चािरयों व अिधकािरयों को दलालों के माध्यम से पैसे देकर सैट कर रखा है। आज रास्ते में भी उसको कई अिधकारी िमले लेिकन पूवर् में सेंिटग होने के कारण िकसी ने उसे रास्ते में पकडा नहीं। 8. अिभयु्व अिभनव पांडे ने पूछताछ में यह भी बताया िक वह वतर्मान में लखनऊ जनपद में ओवरलोडेड वाहन चलाने के िलये पूवर् में आर०टी०ओ० के िनजी डाइवर रहे िवनोद यादव व ए०आर०टी०ओ० लखनऊ राजू वंसल के अधीनस्थ दीवान अनुज पी०टी०ओ० लखनऊ ्शी मनोज भार्षाज के अधीनस्थ ्शी बृजेश, को ढक / डम्परों की सूची व ्ऺित ढक 5500 रूपये ्ऺितमाह देकर ओवरलोड वाहनों को लखनऊ में बेरोकटोक चलाते है तथा अन्य जनपदों में भी इसी तरह के ्ऺाइवेट लोग िर्षत देकर सैिटग कर रखे है। अिभयु्व अिभनव पांडे के कब्जे से बरामद भोबाइल फोन में वाह्सअप ्षुप सकीय पाया गया िजसमें िविभन्न गािडयों के लोके शन क्लीयरेंस व आिडयों व टैस्ट मैसेज सेंड िकया गया था तथा उसकी गाडी की तलाशी लेने पर गाड़ी में कु छ डायरी व नोटबुक बरामद हुये िजसमें िविभन्न ओवरलोड वाहनों के िनवार्द पिरवहन हेतु ली गयी व दी गयी धनरािश का संपूणर् िववरण अंिकत है। िजसे कब्जा पुिलस में िलया गया। NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 5 9. ्ऺस्तुत मामले की ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् िदनांक 12.11.2025 को दजर् की गयी है। िजसकी िववेचना अभी ्ऺारंिभक स्तर पर है। ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक ओवरलोडेड वाहनों के पिरवहन का एक ्िापक िसिडके ट व नेटवकर् पूरे उ्तर ्ऺदेश में संगिठत रूप से संि्वय होकर कायर् कर रहा है िजसमें पिरवहन िवभाग के अिधकािरयों व कमर्चािरयों की संिलप्तता िदखायी पडती है। एस०टी०एफ० की टीम ्षारा िजस ओवरलोडेड डम्पर को पकडा गया वह डम्पर हमीरपुर से मोरंग को लेकर चला था तथा उसका गंत्ि कु शीनगर था तथा वह बेरोकटोक लखनऊ पहुंच गया था। पुनः अिभयु्व अिभनव पांडे के पास से बरामद नोटबुक व अन्य साम्षीयों के अवलोकन से भी स्प्ि हे िक िबना पिरवहन िवभाग के उच्चािधकािरयों के िमलीभगत एवं सहयोग के उपरो्व िसिडके ट / नेटवकर् बेरोकटोक रूप से कायर् नहीं कर सकता। 10, के स डायरी के पचार् नं० 6 के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक िववेचक ्षारा कायार्लय सहायक संभागीय इकाई शासन, लखनऊ से ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में वांिछत ए०आर०टी०ओ० लखनऊ राजीव कु मार बंसल, पी०टी०ओ० मनोज कु मार भार्षाज आिद के संबंध में उनके अस्थायी व स्थायी पते के संबंध में सूचना मांगी गयी थी तो सहायक संभागीय पिरवहन अिधकारी (्ऺशासन) लखनऊ ्षारा अपने प्ऴ िदनांिकत 19.11.2025 के माध्यन से यह सूचना ्ऺदान की गयी थी िक उपरो्व अिधकारी उनले कायार्लय में कायर्रत है परन्तु इनकी मूल सेवा पुिस्तका एवं ्िि्वगत प्ऴावली कायार्लय पिरवहन आयु्व लखनऊ में होने के कारण तथा इस कायार्लय में इनके स्थायी व अस्थायी पते का कोई िववरण उपलब्ध न होने के कारण उनका अस्थायी या स्थायी पता िदया जाना संभव नहीं है। 11. यह अत्यंत ही आ्ायर्जनक एवं खेदजनक है िक उपरो्व ए०आर०टी०ओ० व पी०टी०ओ० िजस कायार्लय में कायर्रत है, उस कायार्लय में उनके स्थायी व अस्थायी पते का कोई िववरण उपलब्ध नहीं है। उनमें से एक राजीव कु मार बंसल ए०आर०टी०ओ० है, जो िक राजपि्ऴत अिधकारी है तथा दूसरे मनोज कु मार भार्षाज या्ऴी/माल कर अिधकारी के िजम्मेदार पद पर कायर्रत है। उनके लखनऊ िस्थत आवास कीसूचना उनके वतर्मान िनयुि्व स्थल के कायार्लय के कायार्लय अध्य्ष से लेकर कायार्लय में कायर्रत िकसी ्िि्व के पास नहीं है। िजससे यह स्प्ितः पिरलि्षत होता है िक उपरो्व िसिडके ट/नेटवकर् इस कदर मजबूत है िक पिरवऽन िवभाग ्षारा इस संबंध में िववेचक ्षारा मांगी गयी वांछनीय सूचना को भी उपलब्ध नहीं करायी जा रहा है। 12. िववेचक ्षारा अपने ्ऺेिषत आख्या के पैरा नं० 36 में यह उिल्लिखत िकया गया है िक आवेदक/अिभयु्व के कायार्लय में वे उपिस्थत नहीं पाये गये है तथा अभी तक फरार चल रहे है। िजससे स्प्ि हैिक आवेदक/अिभयु्व ्षारा िववेचना में कोई सहयोग नहीं िकया जा रहा है। अतः इस स्तर पर उन्हें अि्षम जमानत ्ऺदान की जाती है तो उनके ्षारा िववेचना को ्ऺभािवत िकये जाने की पूरी संभावना है। 13. ्ऺस्तुत मामले में लगाये गये आरोपों की ्ऺकृ ित गंभीरता, पिरवहन िवभाग के अिधकािरयों के कमर्चािरयों की अपराध में सहभािगता, िववेचना के ्ऺारंिभक स्तर आिद को दृि्िगत रखते हुए अिभयु्व को अि्षम जमानत पर िरहा िकये जाने का आधार पयार्प्त नहीं है। अतः आवेदक/अिभयु्व का अि्षम जमानत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आवेदक अिभयु्व ्ऺथम सूचना िरपोटर् में नामजद अिभयु्व है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व राष्भीय कु मार बंसल का अि्षम जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना-प्ऴ िनरस्त िकया जाता है। आदेश की ्ऺितिलिप िजलािधकारी, लखनऊ को सहायक संभागीय पिरवहन अिधकारी (्ऺशासन), लखनऊ के उपरो्व आचरण को सं्ञान में लेगे हेतु एवं ्ऺस्तुत मामले की िववेचना में अपेि्षत रा्योग हेतु आदेिशत करने हेतु ्ऺेिषत हो।" The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 6 (2025) 4 SCC 493, has held that actual exchange of bribe is not an essential requirement for prosecuting an accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the 1988 Act, respectively. ***** 17. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the other hand, Section 13 of the 1988 Act is with regard to criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. 18. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 439 : AIR 1995 SC 1198] , this Court considered the nature of the right of anticipatory bail and observed as under : (SCC p. 226, para 7) “7. … We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. … Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.” (emphasis supplied) 19. While deciding the aforesaid case, this Court referred to the 41st Report of the Indian Law Commission dated 24-9-1969 recommending the introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail wherein it has been observed that “power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases”. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused vehemently advanced NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 7 the argument on the subject of life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by placing strong reliance on the observations made by this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514 : AIR 2011 SC 312] and submitted that unless the custodial interrogation is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, declining to grant anticipatory bail amounts to denial of the rights conferred upon a citizen/person under Article 21 of the Constitution. We do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel. 21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner-accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563] , wherein this Court expressed thus : (SCC p. 465, para 34) “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original and supplied) 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 8 public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned:“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.” In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day-to-day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox populi about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. 27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India [Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1] , this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra [Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187] and held as under : (Manoj Narula case [Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1] , SCC pp. 25- 26, para 16) “16. … ‘26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 9 degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.’ (Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal case [Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187] , SCC pp. 654-55, para 26)” (emphasis supplied) 28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 100, para 68) “68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.” (emphasis supplied) 29. In K.C. Sareen v. CBI [K.C. Sareen v. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1186] , this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 589, para 12) “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity.” (emphasis supplied) 30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] , rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula case [Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1] , a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under : (SCC pp. 26-27, paras 17-18) “17. Recently, inSubramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] , the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 10 while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that : (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) ‘59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.’ And thereafter, the larger Bench further said : (SCC p. 726, para 60) ‘60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.’ And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72) ‘71. Office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption of graft or bribe-taking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker. 72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision- making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.’ 18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday that corruption has the potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect and it has acted as the formidable enemy of the nation.” (emphasis supplied) 31. In Neera Yadav v. CBI [Neera Yadav v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 757 : (2017) 3 SCC NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 11 (Cri) 515] , this Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 784-85, paras 59-61) “59. Every country feels a constant longing for good governance, righteous use of power and transparency in administration. Corruption is no longer a moral issue as it is linked with the search of wholesome governance and the society's need for reassurance that the system functions fairly, free from corruption and nepotism. Corruption has spread its tentacles almost on all the key areas of the State and it is an impediment to the growth of investment and development of the country. If the conduct of administrative authorities is righteous and duties are performed in good faith with the vigilance and awareness that they are public trustees of people's rights, the issue of lack of accountability would themselves fade into insignificance. 60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may refer to the oft quoted words of Kautilya, which reads as under: ‘Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out (while) taking money (for themselves). It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high up in the sky; but not so is it possible to ascertain the movement of government servants of hidden purpose.’ [Ref : Kautilya's Arthasastra by R. Shamasastry, 2nd Edn., p. 77] As pointed out by Paul H. Douglas in his book on “Ethics of Government”, ‘corruption was rife in British public life till a hundred years ago and in USA till the beginning of this century. Nor can it be claimed that it has been altogether eliminated anywhere.’ (Ref : Santhanam Committee Report, 1962 : Para 2.3) 61. Tackling corruption is going to be a priority task for the Government. The Government has been making constant efforts to deal with the problem of corruption. However, the constant legislative reforms and strict judicial actions have still not been able to completely uproot the deeply rooted evil of corruption. This is the area where the Government needs to be seen taking unrelenting, stern and uncompromising steps. Leaders should think of introducing good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only then benefits of liberalisation and various programmes, welfare schemes and programmes would reach the masses. Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the public has all along been found to be to the advantage of the corrupt. Due to the uncontrolled spread of consumerism and fall in moral values, corruption has taken deep roots in the society. What is needed is a reawakening and NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 12 recommitment to the basic values of tradition rooted in ancient and external wisdom. Unless people rise against bribery and corruption, society can never be rid of this disease. The people can collectively put off this evil by resisting corruption by any person, howsoever high he or she may be.” 32. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein." In the aforesaid matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court refusing anticipatory bail, holding that no exceptional circumstances were made out to justify the grant of anticipatory bail in a corruption case, in view of the seriousness of the allegations. The Court further held that anticipatory bail in corruption matters is unwarranted unless it is demonstrated that the allegations are frivolous, politically motivated, or manifestly false. The private register recovered at the instance of a co-accused contains about several hundred entries of various trucks along with their registration numbers, mobile numbers, and names of persons involved in the offence. Thorough investigation appears to be necessary in view of several hundred/thousand entries about the active involvement of these persons. The FIR has been lodged by the STF. Despite the applicant being a gazetted officer, the investigating agency has not been able to ascertain his permanent or temporary address from his office. This aspect has also been specifically observed by the learned trial court while rejecting the bail application. Considering the magnitude and scale at which the syndicate/network is operating, their effective control and influence which has impeded the investigating agency from ascertaining their actual addresses, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), and the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer indicating the complicity of the applicant, this cannot be said to be a case of false implication. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. December 19, 2025/R.C. NABAIL No. 1956 of 2025 13 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench