The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has rejected the anticipatory bail application of an Enforcement Supervisor in the Transport Department accused of being part of a syndicate facilitating the passage of overloaded trucks in exchange for illegal gratification. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed that prima facie evidence established active communication between the applicant and the co-accused, indicating the operation of a well-organized network causing substantial revenue loss to the State.
Case Background
The case stems from an FIR registered by the Special Task Force (STF) alleging the operation of a racket involving Transport Department officials. The prosecution alleged that overloaded trucks transporting sand and gravel were allowed passage without valid permits in connivance with Regional Transport Office (RTO) and Passenger Tax Officer (PTO) officials and their subordinate staff.
On November 11, 2025, the STF apprehended one Abhinav Pandey, who allegedly confessed to coordinating the illegal passage of vehicles by collecting bribes from truck owners and drivers. Acting on his disclosure, an overloaded truck was intercepted. The driver of the truck stated that payments had already been made to transport officials through Pandey.
The investigation revealed that the syndicate operated throughout the State, charging illegal gratification ranging from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per truck to evade statutory penalties.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicant, Anuj Kumar Nishad, posted as an Enforcement Supervisor under ARTO Rajiv Bansal, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2025, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Counsel for the applicant argued that Nishad was merely a witness to seizures or challans and had no independent authority to check or seize vehicles without the permission of the ARTO. It was submitted that the applicant discharged his duties strictly in accordance with directions from co-accused Rajiv Bansal. The defense contended that the applicant’s mobile number was not linked to the offence, he did not know the co-accused Abhinav Pandey, and no specific allegation was attributed to him. The counsel further highlighted the applicant’s clean service record since the year 2000.
Opposing the plea, Shri Alok Tewari, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State, submitted that a “well-organised network” of officers, including the applicant, was involved in the crime. The AGA relied on extracts from the case diary, pointing out that a truck initially shown to have a gross weight of 44,370 kg was found to weigh 66,340 kg upon re-weighing, indicating a deliberate conspiracy to underreport weight.
The State presented Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing frequent telephonic conversations between the accused persons. It was highlighted that co-accused Rajiv Kumar Bansal had 211 conversations with co-accused Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, who in turn had 292 conversations with the applicant. Additionally, the applicant was found to be in conversation with other co-accused, including Ritesh Kumar Pandey alias Shanu.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Pawar examined the material collected during the investigation, including the statements of an independent witness, Ashutosh Dubey, and the recovery of mobile phones and notebooks containing vehicle details. The Court noted that the private register recovered from a co-accused contained several hundred entries relating to various trucks, indicating the “involvement of a large number of individuals in the offence.”
The Court placed significant reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab [(2025) 4 SCC 493], which held that actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement for prosecuting an accused. Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further noted the Investigating Officer’s submission that the applicant had been absconding and not cooperating with the investigation despite being a public servant posted at the RTO Office, Lucknow.
Decision
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held that considering the “magnitude of the syndicate and its influence,” and the active communication established between the applicant and co-accused persons on more than 100 occasions, it could not be said that the applicant had been falsely implicated.
The Court concluded:
“Considering the material collected during the investigation so far… it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated or arraigned merely to tarnish his reputation. A thorough investigation is required in the matter.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anuj Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2046 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar
- Counsel for Applicant: Varun Chandra, Awdhesh Kumar Singh Suryavanshi, Vivek Verma
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Shri Alok Tewari (AGA)
