The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Rajeev Kumar Bansal, an Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) posted in Lucknow, who is accused of involvement in a syndicate facilitating the illegal passage of overloaded trucks. The Court observed that corruption by public servants destroys the societal will to progress and held that no exceptional circumstances existed to grant pre-arrest bail given the gravity of the allegations.
Case Background
The matter arises from Case Crime No. 660 of 2025, registered at Police Station Mandiyaon, Lucknow, under Sections 59, 61(2), 316(5), 318, 303(2), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution alleges that a racket was being operated to facilitate the passage of overloaded trucks transporting sand and gravel without valid permits, causing significant loss to the State Exchequer. On November 11, 2025, the Special Task Force (STF) apprehended one Abhinav Pandey, who allegedly confessed to coordinating the illegal passage of vehicles in connivance with RTO/PTO officials.
The FIR alleges that bribes were collected from truck owners and paid to transport officials, including the applicant, to ensure unchecked movement. A notebook containing details of vehicles and payments was recovered from the co-accused, along with mobile phone chats allegedly incriminating the officials.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Shri Purnendu Chakraborty, assisted by Ms. Snigdha Singh, appearing for the applicant, argued that the FIR was registered in a “casual and mechanical manner” without assigning any specific role or overt act to the applicant. He submitted that Bansal had been posted at the location only four months prior and had no connection to the alleged entries in the co-accused’s notebook.
The defense raised a specific legal objection regarding the invocation of Section 316(5) of the BNS. The counsel contended that while similar FIRs in other districts invoked offences punishable only up to seven years, the applicant was “selectively proceeded against” by invoking Section 316(5) BNS, which carries a punishment of life imprisonment, without supporting material. It was further submitted that the applicant is a government officer with an unblemished service record and is currently on medical leave.
Opposing the plea, Shri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A., and the ACP, Aliganj, submitted that the applicant was part of an organized gang. They relied on the statement of an independent witness, Ashutosh Dubey, and call detail records (CDRs). The prosecution highlighted that during his posting, the applicant had telephonic conversations with co-accused Manoj Bhardwaj on 211 occasions and with his subordinate Anuj Kumar on 292 occasions between June and November 2025.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar rejected the defense’s contention regarding the applicability of Section 316(5) BNS. The Court held:
“The same is patently misconceived, inasmuch as the applicant is a public servant entrusted with a public office. The allegations are that the applicant, by indulging in commission of offence alleged offence, has betrayed the trust reposed in him with regard to his office. The provision deals with the betrayal of trust concerning property with harsher penalties for those holding positions of greater responsibilities in public office.”
The Court noted that the investigation prima facie revealed that overloaded trucks were being cleared by “deliberately showing lesser weight,” causing loss to state revenue. The Court also took serious note of the fact that the Investigating Officer could not obtain the applicant’s residential address from his own department.
“It is clearly reflected that the syndicate/network is so strong that even the desirable information sought by the Investigating Officer is not being made available by the Transport Department,” the Court observed, adding that the applicant appeared to be not cooperating with the investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025) 4 SCC 493, the High Court emphasized that the “actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement for prosecuting an accused” under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Decision
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, the Court held that given the “magnitude and scale at which the syndicate/network is operating” and the “plethora of evidence collected,” it was not a case of false implication.
“Considering the magnitude and scale at which the syndicate/network is operating… and the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer indicating the complicity of the applicant, this cannot be said to be a case of false implication. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” Justice Pawar ruled.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the District Magistrate, Lucknow, to take cognizance of the conduct of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) regarding the unavailability of the applicant’s address records.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rajeev Kumar Bansal @ Raju Bansal Arto Lko. vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko. And Another
- Case No: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1956 of 2025
- Court: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
- Coram: Hon’ble Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar
- Date of Judgment: 19.12.2025
- Counsel for Applicant: Shri Purnendu Chakraborty (Senior Advocate), Ms. Snigdha Singh, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Shri J.S. Tomar (A.G.A.), G.A.
