Courts Must Not Act as Recovery Agents: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Alleged Appointment Scam Involving ₹15 Lakh Bribe Demand

“It cannot be said that the amount alleged to be paid by the complainant was actually paid to the accused at this stage... courts are not expected to act as recovery agents”, - Allahabad High Court granted bail to Rajnikant Shukla, accused in an alleged appointment scam involving forgery and bribery, in Case Crime No. 292 of 2022, Police Station George Town, Prayagraj. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, relying on the principles laid down in landmark Supreme Court judgments, held that courts cannot impose conditions for monetary deposit while granting bail, nor can they act as recovery agents in criminal cases.

In a strongly-worded judgment, the Court criticized the criminal justice system’s tendency to enforce financial conditions for bail that amount to premature recovery of alleged dues. It quashed the imposition of payment obligations while granting bail and emphasized the presumption of innocence, delay in FIR, and pre-trial incarceration as critical factors justifying bail.

The case stems from an FIR lodged by Shikha Mishra on August 8, 2022, alleging that Rajnikant Shukla, then manager of Shri Shakti Vidyapeeth Junior High School, demanded ₹15,00,000 from her in return for an Assistant Teacher (English) appointment. According to the FIR:

“...the applicant and his wife demanded Rs.20,00,000 and the deal was finalized for Rs.15,00,000, which was paid in cash... later, a further demand of Rs.5,00,000 was made to allow her to join.”

After six years of silence, she filed a complaint when she wasn’t allowed to join. Subsequently, serious IPC charges—Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B—were added upon discovery that the appointment letter was allegedly forged.

Delay in FIR Weakens Prosecution’s Case

The Court found the six-year delay in lodging the FIR without proper explanation deeply suspect:

“...the delay in lodging the FIR that too as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant against the relatives of the informant...”

It noted that the applicant had earlier filed a kidnapping FIR against the informant’s relatives in 2021, casting doubt on the bona fides of the current complaint.

Bail Cannot Be Conditioned on Payment of Alleged Bribe

Citing the Supreme Court in U.N. Gupta v. State of Bihar, the Court stated: “...courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail... are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused.”

Justice Gupta echoed the concern that: “...the direction for deposit is in the teeth of a plethora of decisions... courts must examine bail independently without being swayed by submissions demanding payment.”

The court emphasized that since the alleged transaction was denied and lacked supporting evidence, monetary conditions cannot be imposed at the bail stage.

Bail Despite Criminal History

The applicant had a record of 34 cases, including cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act, which the Court distinguished as civil in nature: “...out of 34 cases, 11 are under Section 138 NI Act which arise out of civil transaction... cannot be said to be criminal in strict sense.”

Importantly, the Court noted: “...though the applicant has been involved in various cases, he has not been convicted in any of the cases till date. Therefore, a presumption of innocence is in his favour.”

Granting bail, the Court held:

“...without commenting upon the merits of the case... in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.”

Rajnikant Shukla was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2025