High Court

2. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0003 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Aligarh, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Senior Assistant in the office of District Development Officer and as per allegation, complainant was auditor and his payment was due and with regard to his payment when he made contact with D.D.O. Vipin Kumar then he made demand of bribe of Rs. 29,000/- from him in form of commission and instructed him to meet with applicant and when complainant met with applicant then applicant also stated that he will have to pay Rs. 29,000/- and subsequently matter was settled for Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter applicant was arrested red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He next submits, from the record it reflects, D.D.O. Vipin Kumar also made demand of bribe and applicant, who was petty Clerk in his office made demand of bribe on his behest but surprisingly he has not been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, it appears, only being petty employee applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter by exonerating D.D.O. Vipin Kumar.

6. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after arrest of the applicant he has taken to 600 meter away from the spot and at that place his hands were washed and thereafter applicant has taken to the police station where recovery memo and other documents were prepared. He next submits, the manner in which entire trap proceedings have been conducted casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, Vipin Kumar D.D.O. initially made demand of bribe and applicant made demand of bribe and received bribe on his behest but in spite of that he has not been made accused in the present matter.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged trap the hands of the applicant were washed about 600 meter away from the alleged spot and thereafter the recovery memo and other documents of trap were prepared at police station. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

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

11. However, as per allegation applicant was Senior Assistant in the office of District Development Officer and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 29,000/- from the complainant which was settled to 25,000/- and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team but from the FIR it reflects, initially demand of bribe was made by Vipin Kumar, D.D.O. and he told the complainant to meet the applicant. Record also suggests that applicant received and made demand of bribe on behest of Vipin Kumar, the DDO but surprisingly Vipin Kumar has not been made accused in the present matter.

12. Considering above facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that being petty employee applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter by exonerating Vipin Kumar, D.D.O cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

13. Further, from the FIR it reflects, even the hands of the applicant have not been washed at the place where trap was made and the same were washed about 600 meters away and not only this, thereafter the recovery memo and other documents relating to trap have been prepared at police station. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that these facts casts serious doubt on the alleged trap cannot be also completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, applicant was posed as Senior Assistant in the office of DDO and as per prosecution he was making demand of bribe and accepted the bribe to clear the dues of the complainant, who was public auditor but it reflects, the authority of the same was not vested with the applicant and the same was vested with Vipin Kumar, the DDO.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

16. 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.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Praveen Kumar 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 18.8.2025 AK Pandey

2. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0003 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Aligarh, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Senior Assistant in the office of District Development Officer and as per allegation, complainant was auditor and his payment was due and with regard to his payment when he made contact with D.D.O. Vipin Kumar then he made demand of bribe of Rs. 29,000/- from him in form of commission and instructed him to meet with applicant and when complainant met with applicant then applicant also stated that he will have to pay Rs. 29,000/- and subsequently matter was settled for Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter applicant was arrested red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He next submits, from the record it reflects, D.D.O. Vipin Kumar also made demand of bribe and applicant, who was petty Clerk in his office made demand of bribe on his behest but surprisingly he has not been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, it appears, only being petty employee applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter by exonerating D.D.O. Vipin Kumar.

6. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after arrest of the applicant he has taken to 600 meter away from the spot and at that place his hands were washed and thereafter applicant has taken to the police station where recovery memo and other documents were prepared. He next submits, the manner in which entire trap proceedings have been conducted casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, Vipin Kumar D.D.O. initially made demand of bribe and applicant made demand of bribe and received bribe on his behest but in spite of that he has not been made accused in the present matter.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged trap the hands of the applicant were washed about 600 meter away from the alleged spot and thereafter the recovery memo and other documents of trap were prepared at police station. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

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

11. However, as per allegation applicant was Senior Assistant in the office of District Development Officer and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 29,000/- from the complainant which was settled to 25,000/- and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team but from the FIR it reflects, initially demand of bribe was made by Vipin Kumar, D.D.O. and he told the complainant to meet the applicant. Record also suggests that applicant received and made demand of bribe on behest of Vipin Kumar, the DDO but surprisingly Vipin Kumar has not been made accused in the present matter.

12. Considering above facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that being petty employee applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter by exonerating Vipin Kumar, D.D.O cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

13. Further, from the FIR it reflects, even the hands of the applicant have not been washed at the place where trap was made and the same were washed about 600 meters away and not only this, thereafter the recovery memo and other documents relating to trap have been prepared at police station. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that these facts casts serious doubt on the alleged trap cannot be also completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, applicant was posed as Senior Assistant in the office of DDO and as per prosecution he was making demand of bribe and accepted the bribe to clear the dues of the complainant, who was public auditor but it reflects, the authority of the same was not vested with the applicant and the same was vested with Vipin Kumar, the DDO.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 21.03.2025.

16. 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.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Praveen Kumar 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 18.8.2025 AK Pandey