Read Time: 05 minutes
The accused was caught in a police trap, but his lawyer argued that he was falsely implicated, as he wasn't authorized to issue the NOC and had no reason to demand the bribe
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a junior clerk accused of accepting a bribe. The man was arrested on October 16, 2023, following a police trap operation where he was allegedly caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs 5,000.
A complaint was filed by one Narendra Kumar Mishra, who had applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for land adjacent to a proposed public highway.
Junior Clerk Nitin Srivastava, who was not authorized to issue such a certificate, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 to facilitate the issuance of the NOC. Based on this complaint, the police laid a trap and apprehended Srivastava with the bribe money.
An FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
During the bail hearing before the high court, Srivastava's counsel, Advocate Rajiv Lochan Shukla assisted by Advocate Siddharth Shukla, argued that Srivastava was innocent and he had been falsely implicated.
They asserted that since Srivastava was not the competent authority to grant the NOC, there was no basis for the demand alleged to have been made by him.
Furthermore, they argued that recovery of bribe money from him was of no consequence as mere recovery of money did not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially since Srivastava was not the competent authority to issue the NOC.
The counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) to support their contention that the case against Srivastava was not tenable.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Misra, after reviewing the evidence and the circumstances, noted that the prosecution could not establish a clear basis for the alleged demand for a bribe.
Moreover, court took into account Srivastava's clean antecedents and the fact that he had already spent nearly nine and a half months in jail.
Court also emphasized that the entire evidence against Srivastava had been crystallized, and there were no substantial reasons to keep him in custody during the trial.
Accordingly, court granted him bail. However, it imposed several conditions, including that Srivastava must not tamper with evidence, must attend court hearings regularly, and must not engage in any unlawful activities.
Case Title: Nitin Srivastava v. State of UP
Please Login or Register
