High Court

1. Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.6 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption District/Unit ACO, U.P. Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant works as a lineman on contractual basis in the electricity department and as per allegation when notice was issued by the SDO concerned to the complainant with regard to the excess electricity load then he approached the SDO concerned i.e. co- accused Amrendra Yadav and he made a demand of Rs. 50,000 bribe from him which was ultimately settled for Rs. 30,000/- and when on the instructions of the co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned, applicant was receiving bribe from the complainant then he was apprehended red-handed by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that applicant never involved in such illegal act and he never acted at the behest of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned and actually Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned was the principal accused and only with intention to save his skin, applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that however, Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned is also one of the accused in the present matter but till date, he is out of the clutches and he is roaming freely and even is doing his duties.

6. He further submitted that even admittedly applicant was not in the capacity to adjust the electricity load of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for him either to made demand or receive any bribe from the complainant. He next submits, it is also not the case of prosecution that applicant was the person who made demand of bribery and admittedly demand was made by co- accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

7. He further submitted that being small fish, applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.3.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

9. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge sheet has been filed.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was apprehended red-handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned but could not dispute the fact that applicant was a pity contractual employee in the electricity department and demand of bribe was made by co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Amrendra Yadav, SDO concerned has not been arrested, till date.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail for last more than three months and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, applicant was apprehended red- handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned but admittedly, he is a contractual employee in the electricity department and he did not make any demand of bribe and demand of bribe was made by co- accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

15. Further co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned till date has not been arrested and investigation in his regard is still pending. However, with regard to the applicant, investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed against him.

16. Further, being contractual employee applicant was not having any authority to reduce the electricity load of the complainant and the same authority was vested with co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant-Rifakat Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 3.7.2025/Ankita

1. Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.6 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption District/Unit ACO, U.P. Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant works as a lineman on contractual basis in the electricity department and as per allegation when notice was issued by the SDO concerned to the complainant with regard to the excess electricity load then he approached the SDO concerned i.e. co- accused Amrendra Yadav and he made a demand of Rs. 50,000 bribe from him which was ultimately settled for Rs. 30,000/- and when on the instructions of the co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned, applicant was receiving bribe from the complainant then he was apprehended red-handed by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that applicant never involved in such illegal act and he never acted at the behest of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned and actually Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned was the principal accused and only with intention to save his skin, applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that however, Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned is also one of the accused in the present matter but till date, he is out of the clutches and he is roaming freely and even is doing his duties.

6. He further submitted that even admittedly applicant was not in the capacity to adjust the electricity load of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for him either to made demand or receive any bribe from the complainant. He next submits, it is also not the case of prosecution that applicant was the person who made demand of bribery and admittedly demand was made by co- accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

7. He further submitted that being small fish, applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.3.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

9. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge sheet has been filed.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was apprehended red-handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned but could not dispute the fact that applicant was a pity contractual employee in the electricity department and demand of bribe was made by co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Amrendra Yadav, SDO concerned has not been arrested, till date.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail for last more than three months and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, applicant was apprehended red- handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO concerned but admittedly, he is a contractual employee in the electricity department and he did not make any demand of bribe and demand of bribe was made by co- accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

15. Further co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned till date has not been arrested and investigation in his regard is still pending. However, with regard to the applicant, investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed against him.

16. Further, being contractual employee applicant was not having any authority to reduce the electricity load of the complainant and the same authority was vested with co-accused Amrendra Yadav, the SDO, concerned.

17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant-Rifakat Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 3.7.2025/Ankita