Allahabad High Court Dismisses Bribery Case Against Alleged Middleman in UP Solar Project
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed against an alleged middleman accused of seeking a bribe on behalf of the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Invest UP, Abhishek Prakash. The court cited a "lack of evidence" in its ruling, which pertains to a high-profile case involving a solar power project valued at Rs 8,000 crore.
Details of the Allegations and Court's Observations
The case originated from allegations made by an official of SAEL Solar P6 Private Ltd, who claimed that Prakash directed him to meet Nikant Jain, a 40-year-old middleman, to discuss securing the massive solar project. In March of last year, Jain was accused of demanding a 5 per cent commission for facilitating government approvals. Following these allegations, Jain was arrested under charges of extortion and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Lucknow's Gomti Nagar police station.
However, in its order issued on Monday, the bench of Justice Rajeev Singh noted that after a thorough analysis of the case diary, no evidence was found to support the claims. The court stated, "There is no evidence in the entire case diary that any property was delivered to the applicant pursuant to threat, and therefore, no offence of extortion is made out." Additionally, it highlighted that there was no proof of Jain offering or promising undue advantages to any officials of Invest UP or related committees.
Background on Key Figures and Departmental Actions
Abhishek Prakash, who also served as the secretary of the State Industrial Development Department, was placed under suspension by the Uttar Pradesh government following the allegations. Notably, Prakash was not named as an accused in the FIR or chargesheet. However, the state government's Department of Appointments and Personnel issued him a chargesheet in July last year as part of a departmental inquiry, seeking his response to two key allegations.
Apart from the bribery accusations, Prakash faced separate allegations regarding anomalies in land acquisition for the Defence Corridor project during his tenure as the Lucknow district magistrate. These matters remain under investigation but were not directly linked to the high court's ruling on the bribery case.
Court's Rationale and Complainant's Admissions
The high court emphasized that the foundation of the proceedings was weakened by the complainant's own admissions. In a counter affidavit, the complainant acknowledged that the complaint was filed due to "utter confusion and misunderstanding." He admitted that no money was ever given to Jain and that the project was deferred by the Evaluation Committee due to incomplete information on land availability and electricity subsidies, not because of any corrupt practices.
The bench further observed, "The root cause of the entire proceedings is the written complaint moved by the complainant... it is admitted by the complainant that later on, it came into his knowledge that since the information pertaining to availability of land and subsidy on electricity was not available on record, the project was put for re-evaluation." This admission played a crucial role in the court's decision to quash the FIR and chargesheet, as it undermined the credibility of the initial allegations.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
This ruling highlights the importance of substantial evidence in corruption cases, especially those involving high-stakes government projects. The court's dismissal underscores that mere allegations, without concrete proof of financial transactions or undue influence, are insufficient to sustain legal proceedings. It also sheds light on the procedural aspects of project evaluations in Uttar Pradesh, where committees may defer applications for re-evaluation based on administrative reasons rather than malfeasance.
The case has drawn significant attention in legal and political circles, given its connection to Invest UP, a key agency for industrial development in the state. As the matter concludes in the high court, it may influence future investigations into similar allegations, emphasizing the need for clear evidence before initiating criminal charges.
