Allahabad High Court
NIRIKSHAK RAMESH SINGH SIDDHUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted as there is no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe and no likelihood of evidence tampering.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. by Sub‑Inspector Nirikshak Ramesh Singh Siddhu, who was arrested for allegedly receiving a bribe of Rs.3,87,000 hidden in his police vehicle. The applicant contended that the money recovered was his own cash withdrawn from his wife's bank account for his daughter's marriage and that no demand or acceptance of bribe could be proved under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State argued that the recovery of the cash from the dashboard of the accused's car indicated a prima facie case of corruption. After examining the charge sheet, the court found no material showing a demand, acceptance, or tampering of evidence and noted the applicant's clean criminal record. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant be released on bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and a set of strict conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. in a case involving alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the NDPS Act.
- Whether the elements of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, i.e., demand and acceptance of a bribe, are established against the applicant.
- Whether the recovered cash constitutes illegal proceeds or lawful funds withdrawn by the applicant.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from trial.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 3(5)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 173, 209, 269, 351, 483, 84
- NDPS Act — s. 22, 29, 37, 60, 8
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(b), 13(2), 7
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- NDPS Act
- bribe
- evidence tampering
- flight risk
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45095 of 2025
Nirikshak Ramesh Singh Siddhu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajan
Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicant- Nirikshak Ramesh Singh Siddhu, seeking enlargement on bail
during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0396 of 2025, under Sections
7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 173
B.N.S., registered at P.S. Sihani Gate, District- Nagar Commissionerate
Ghaziabad.
4. The facts of the case are that on 20.11.2025 the police informer
informed the informant that Ramesh Singh Siddhu, Sub-Inspector, Posted
in Crime Branch, Commissionerate Ghaziabad is investigating Case
Crime No. 691 of 2025, under Sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) BNS
and Section 8/22/29/37/60 NDPS Act, in which some accused are in jail
and some accused are absconding and in order to give benefit to the
accused, he in his car no.UK06KA0125 has taken bribe money from
Rahul Sharma and hidden it in his car which is standing in the Crime
Branch premises. On the said information Additional Police
Commissioner, Nandgram, summoned police officials and informed them
who then went to the said place and on the pointing out of the police
informer got the said vehicle opened and on asking the accused stated it is
BAIL No. 45095 of 2025
2
his vehicle and on search found Rs.3,87,000/- in the dashboard. The
accused was informed about the reasons and ground of his arrest and
arrested and the said money was recovered. The F.I.R. was lodged on the
basis of the said recovery memo.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that recovery of the alleged
money is from the car and not from the possession of the applicant. While
placing para-21 of the affidavit in support of bail application it is
submitted that the applicant has some agricultural land and his wife has
taken agricultural loan and the money was withdrawn to buy jewellery for
his daughter's marriage, copy of the bank statement showing withdrawal
of Rs.4,50,000/- on 09.10.2025 has been placed before the Court which is
annexure no. 4 to the affidavit in support of bail application. Further while
placing para-22 of the affidavit it is submitted that the said money as
recovered, is the money which has been withdrawn as cash from the bank
loan of the applicant and is not illegal money. It is further submitted that
while placing para-17 of the affidavit that Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is not made out as there is no evidence regarding
any demand and acceptance of bribe money. It is submitted while placing
supplementary affidavit dated 08.2.2026 that charge sheet in the matter
has been submitted against the applicant and Rahul Sharma on which the
court concerned has taken cognizance vide order dated 20.1.2026, copy of
the said charge sheet has been placed before the Court which is annexure
no. S.A.-1 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that
the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-26 of the
affidavit and is in jail since 21.11.2025.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that recovery of alleged money is from the dashboard
of car of the applicant. The recovery is of Rs.3,87,000/-. The case of the
applicant is that the applicant had withdrawn Rs.4,50,000/- in cash from
the bank account of his wife on 09.10.2025, out of the said amount, the
recovered money was kept for purchase of jewellery for marriage of his
daughter. There is nothing on record to show any demand and acceptance
of bribe money. Investigation in the matter has concluded and charge
BAIL No. 45095 of 2025
3
sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken
cognizance.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant- Nirikshak Ramesh Singh Siddhu, be released on bail
in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS,
2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS,
2023.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion
BAIL No. 45095 of 2025
4
of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance
with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
BNS, 2023.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
applicant to prison.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
February 26, 2026
Naresh
Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…