The Allahabad High Court has partly allowed the bail application (for a period of four months) of a Sub-Inspector who was accused in a serious case of corruption and illegal extortion, holding that no further relief can be granted in view of the recovery of a substantial amount of cash from his possession, the gravity of the allegations, and the fact that his earlier bail application had already been rejected on 02.12.2024.
Further, after the expiry of aforesaid period, the applicant was required to be surrender before the concerned court.
The said order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal while partly allowing the bail application filed by Sub-Inspector Alok Singh and dismissed the other connected matters filed by co-accused persons.
In the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused Prince Srivastava, who was granted bail by the Apex Court on 19.12.2025
During the hearing, counsel for the applicant argued that for a fair trial and effective defence, preservation of Call Detail Records (CDR) and collection of CCTV footage of the police station were necessary, as the entire prosecution case was alleged to be false and fabricated.
It was submitted by the counsel that unless these materials were collected and preserved, the applicant would be withheld from a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Refuting these submissions, the State counsel contended that the applicant was specifically named in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein an active role had been attributed to him.
The Court emphasised that,
“Merely on the ground that the applicants were not named in the F.I.R. cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that their implication in the present matter is false and no offence whatsoever is made out against them.”
Also while considering the factual matrix, the Court observed that,
“As of now, directing the Investigating Officer to collect CCTV footage and make it part of the investigation, would be an interference in the investigation and directing investigation to be done in a particular manner.”
Accordingly, the Court held that no case for interference was made out.
According to the facts of the case, an FIR was lodged on 09.04.2024 at Kotwali Police Station, Gorakhpur, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons. The businessman Naveen Kumar Srivastava (complainant), alleged that due to business purpose on 03.04.2024, he along with his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were going with a bag at about 06:00 a.m., on the way they were stopped by applicant and 3-4 people in plain clothes.
At that time, Model Code of Conduct was in force, the police seized ₹50 lakh from him and thereafter, did not return the amount . Applicant threatened him that he would implicate him in a case of theft and loot.
During the course of investigation, ₹30 lakh was recovered from Sub-Inspector Alok Singh and ₹14 lakh from co-accused Prince Srivastav. The Court held that such a large recovery could not be brushed aside on the plea of “false implication” and noted that the role of the applicant was prima facie serious in nature.
The Court further clarified that,
“Investigation of the matter is done to unfurl the truth and to see the complicity of the accused in the matter. During investigation the first informant has specifically disclosed the names of both the applicants namely Prachand Pratap Singh and Vishal Tiwari and has assigned specific roles to them and as such it cannot be said that there is no evidence whatsoever on record against them.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the High Court reiterated that the law governing the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is strict.
At the stage of quashing, only the prosecution material can be examined, and the Court cannot assess the defence evidence or enter into disputed questions of fact. The Court also reiterated that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot conduct a “mini trial”.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications seeking directions for the collection of CCTV footage and other technical evidence, holding that at this stage, the investigation is the exclusive domain of the police and judicial interference is impermissible.
The Court also rejected the applications filed by co-accused Vishal Tiwari and Prachand Pratap Singh seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and entire proceedings, observing that their roles had emerged during investigation and the proceedings could not be terminated at this stage. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on 29.05.2026.
Case: Alok Singh vs State of U.P. (Also connected with other matters)
Date of Order: 30.01.2026
See Order: Alok Singh vs State of U.P.
