Patna High Court
Akhilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar through S.P Vigilance, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the prosecution evidence prima facie establishes the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the petitioner’s defence cannot be entertained at the discharge stage, so the application to quash the order was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar, sought to quash the order rejecting his discharge application under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that the trap operation by the Vigilance Department was fabricated and that the evidence – cash recovered, video, audio recordings – was unreliable. The prosecution presented a pre‑trap memorandum, video footage of the petitioner being caught with Rs 30,000, and audio scripts indicating a demand for bribe. The petitioner contended there was no occasion for him to demand or accept any money, that the committee overseeing scrap lifting rendered his role marginal, and that the forensic handling of evidence was flawed. The court held that, at the stage of a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, the defence cannot be examined and the material produced by the prosecution must be taken as true; the evidence prima facie disclosed commission of an offence. Consequently, the application to quash the order was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC on the basis of alleged procedural irregularities in the trap operation.
- Whether the evidence produced by the prosecution (cash recovery, video, audio) is sufficient to deny discharge.
- Whether the defence statements of the petitioner can be considered at the discharge stage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227, 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 7(a)
Subjects
- Bribery
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Discharge petition
- Section 227 CrPC
- Trap operation
- Evidentiary standards
- Inherent powers Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9800 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Late Baso Choudhary, Resident of - H. No. 484, New
Mainpura, Kharanja Road, Jai Mata Di STD Danapur, P.S. - Danapur, District
- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through S.P Vigilance, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Nilabh Ranjan, Adv.
For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of the
order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special
Judge, Vigilance, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02
of 2025, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025,
registered from the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
2/12
of Corruption Act, whereby the discharge application of the
petitioner has been rejected.
3. The present case arises out of an FIR lodged
against the petitioner for illegally accepting bribe while being
authorized to be a witness on gate-pass for lifting of iron scrap
materials on behalf of the South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Ltd (in short the SBPDCL). It is the prosecution story
that a total demand of Rs. 90,000/- was made as bribe, failing
which, the complainants, being purchasers, would be blacklisted
and face trouble. The allegation was verified by the members of
the Vigilance and they accordingly set-up a pre-trap for a
particular day, to be recorded by another member. Upon being
searched, the petitioner, on 07.01.2025, was found with a cash
of Rs. 30,000/-, which was planned by the Vigilance as well as
recorded in a form of video by one of the members. On the
same day, post-trap memorandum was prepared, cash which was
recovered from the right side pocket worn by the petitioner, duly
verified by two independent witnesses that tallied the number
mentioned in pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter, the arrest
memo was prepared, in which, hands and the pocket of the pant
of the petitioner were washed in different glasses from
chemicals which turned pink as well as audio recorder and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
3/12
memory card, all were marked as Exhibits-A to G respectively.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the entire story of the prosecution is false and there is no
material to show that there was any occasion for the petitioner
to receive the amount so alleged. It has further been submitted
that the prosecution story has crucial omissions regarding
unexplained delay in date of filing of the complaint and the date
of incident. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record
which proves the capacity under which the complainants lodged
the present complaint. It has next been submitted that the
SBPDCL constituted a Committee, comprising five persons,
authorized to oversee lifting of scrap and no occasion was found
for the petitioner to have demanded bribe or even if the
allegation that he was creating hurdle is accepted, then it is
unexplained as to how he alone would have obstructed the part
by not putting signature, as it was not mandatory. It has also
been submitted that the allegation of threat of blacklisting the
complainants, attributed to the petitioner, is beyond the authority
of the petitioner and, hence, a super imposition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there was foul play between the complainants and the
authority for lifting scraps and the cost of the same to be paid,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
4/12
which was a threat to them, as the petitioner would have known
about it, hence the allegation was fabricated against him. It has
been submitted that no evidence shows refusal of signing by the
petitioner on the said gate-pass, that could impact towards
lifting of said scraps nor there is any statement of the drivers of
the vehicles or detail of the vehicles, so trapped. It has lastly
been submitted that the voice recording is not scientifically
examined nor actual footage of CCTV was recovered from the
site of incident neither the evidence was proved to be
untampered nor the credibility of the witnesses are reliable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus,
submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned in the
present application and, accordingly, the present application
preferred by the petitioner is fit to be dismissed.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the Vigilance, while opposeing the
application of the petitioner, has submitted that there was
sufficient material found against him and, thereafter, the charge-
sheet has been filed, whereupon the cognizance was taken and
subsequently, the discharge application filed by the petitioner
was rejected.
8. Referring to the post and pre trap memorandum,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
5/12
the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that a
raiding team was constituted and after following all the
requirements under the law, the currency notes were applied
with phenolphthalein powder mixed with sodium carbonate and,
thereafter, in a well-laid trap, the petitioner was apprehended
accepting Rs. 30,000/- as bribe. It has been submitted that there
is no illegality in the conduct of the raid and the procedures as
laid down was followed.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, while
referring to the audio scripts of the conversation between the
accused/petitioner and other persons, submits that there is
enough evidence to show that the conversation with regard to
demand and payment of money was being made and, therefore,
at this stage, discharging the petitioner would not be proper and
the defence of the petitioner cannot be taken into account at the
present stage. It has further been submitted that the defence
adopted by the petitioner to have never demanded or accepted
any bribe from the complainants in connection with the lifting
of the iron scrap materials, is only a defence and merely because
no work was pending with him while he was apprehended along
with the currency notes, cannot be a ground for discharge.
10. It has next been submitted by the counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
6/12
the Vigilance that the defence being taken by the petitioner of
the fact that a Committee, consisting of five different persons, to
oversee the lifting of scrap materials was constituted and,
therefore, the role of the petitioner was marginalized, cannot, in
any possibility, be considered at the present stage as this is only
his defence and in view of petitioner being caught red-handed
with the said amount, the acceptance of bribe cannot be ruled
out at the present stage and the same can only be seen during the
trial.
11. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and on going through the
pleadings available on record, one thing is very much clear that
the case of the Department of Vigilance was that a pre-trap
memorandum was prepared and, accordingly, a trap was laid and
the petitioner was caught red-handed with Rs. 30,000/- and,
thereupon, the present case was lodged. It is also evident from
the FIR that there was certain work for which the petitioner is
said to have made certain demands and on account of such
complaint made by the complainants, namely, Pramod Kumar
and Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary, the trap was laid. This Court
has also observed that the A.S.I. of the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau has also verified such allegations and, thereafter, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
7/12
pre-trap memorandum was prepared and the trap was laid.
12. From the perusal of the post-trap
memorandum, this Court does not find any irregularity as far as
the procedures are concerned and the entire trap was also video-
graphed and the same forms part of the evidence against the
petitioner. From the post-trap memorandum, it is also evident
that the amount was recovered from the pocket of the pant of the
petitioner and, thereafter, he was apprehended on the spot.
13. The contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that there was no occasion for him to make
such demand and he was one of the members of the Committee
among five and, therefore, he could not have, in all possibility,
being instrumental in taking the money alone to do the work of
the complainants, does not seem reasonable as it is yet to be
deciphered whether the said amount was being accepted by the
petitioner for his own purpose or the same was meant for others.
14. The arguments raised on behalf of the
petitioner are more in the nature of defence and, therefore, as
per the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the versions of the petitioner, which are all
matters of defence, could not be looked into while considering
the petition for discharge.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
8/12
15. It is a settled law that while deciding a
discharge petition, the evidences brought on record by the
prosecution, both in the form of documents or oral statements,
are to be considered and an accused is only entitled to be
discharged if the evidence which the prosecution has proposed
to be adduced during the trial to prove the guilt of the accused,
even if fully accepted, cannot, in all possibility, go on to show
that the accused has committed such offence.
16. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
accused has a right to explain the materials giving rise to the
suspicion and the evidence which has been brought against him,
but his submissions has to be confined to the materials brought
by the prosecution and no plea of his by way of defence can be
looked into at the stage of discharge.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in
support of his contention, has placed reliance upon a judgment
rendered in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with respect to the legal principles
applicable with regard to an application seeking discharge, has
observed in paragraph 17 as follows:
Legal principles applicable in regard
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
9/12
to an application seeking discharge
“17. This is an area covered by a large
body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment
which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P.
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala : (2020) 2 SCC 398/
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488 and discern the
following principles:
17.1. If two view are possible and one
of them gives rise to suspicion only as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge would be empowered to discharge the
accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post
office to frame the charge at the instance of the
prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the
evidence in order to find out whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence
would consist of the statements recorded by the
police or the documents produced before the
Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt
of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by
the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that
the accused committed offence, then, there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial”.
17.5. It is open to the accused to
explain away the materials giving rise to the
grave suspicion.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
10/12
17.6. The court has to consider the
broad probabilities, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
court, any basis infirmities appearing in the case
and so on. This, however, would not entitle the
court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and
cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into, and the material
brought on record by the prosecution, has to be
accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials
for entertaining the strong suspicion which can
form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.”
18. The aforesaid judgment does not come to the
rescue of the petitioner as the Court had very categorically
stated that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material
brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true.
19. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 18 of the judgment, referred to above, has clarified as
under:
“18. The defence of the accused is
not to be looked into at the stage when the
accused seeks to be discharged under Section
227 CrPC (see State of J & K Vs. Sudershan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
11/12
Chakkar : (1995) 4 SCC 181/1995 SCC (Cri)
664/AIR 1995 SC 1954). The expression,
“record of the case”, used in Section 227 CrPC,
is to be understood as the documents and the
articles, if any, produced by the prosecution.
The Code does not give any right to the accused
to produce any document at the stage of framing
of the charge. At the stage of framing of the
charge, the submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the police
(see State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi :
(2005) 1 SCC 568/ 2005 SCC (Cri) 415/AIR
2005 SC 359).”
20. In view of such categorical observation by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the defence of the accused cannot
be looked into at the stage of discharge as it is evident from the
pleadings of the petitioner that he has tried to make out a
defence against the allegations levelled against him and denying
the very trap, would amount to coming out with his defence,
which the learned Trial Court was not competent to consider at
the time of discharge.
21. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577.
22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is
evident that the petitioner is relying more on defence rather than
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9800 of 2026 dt.18-02-2026
12/12
pointing out any irregularity in the trap and the materials which
have been brought against him. The materials available on
record prima facie discloses commission of offence under P.C.
Act warranting trial and no ground is made out to invoke the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
23. This Court, therefore, does not find any
illegality in the impugned order dated 16.01.2026, referred to
above.
24. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
25. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date 18.02.2026
Checking your session…