Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwari, 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. 1212 of 2013, under Sections 13(1)e, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Senior Clerk in the office of CMO and as per allegation, his expenses were more than his known source of income but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.12.2013 i.e. about 12 years before and during investigation, however, applicant fully co-operated but Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without arrest charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.

5. He further submitted that after submission of charge sheet applicant challenged the proceeding pending against him before this Court in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 4052 of 2025 which is though still pending but as applicant could not get any interim order in his favour, therefore, he applied for anticipatory bail but he could not get anticipatory bail from the court concerned and even from this Court and thereafter when 2 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 he approached Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 4700 of 2025 then however, initially Apex Court protected him but on 15.7.2025 his SLP was dismissed with a direction that applicant can seek regular bail and thereafter applicant filed regular bail before the court concerned but the same was dismissed.

6. He further submitted that as during investigation applicant was not arrested therefore after submission of charge sheet, there was no occasion to reject his bail application. He placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 61 and judgement passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another dated 12.8.2025 passed in Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025.

7. He further submitted that applicant has already retired from service and at present he is 67 years old and infirm person.

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and out of seven cases in four cases final report has been submitted and in some other cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court.

9. He further submitted that in the present matter applicant is in jail since

29.10.2025 i.e. for last one and half months.

10. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be released on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

13. However, it appears to be a case of disproportionate income and as per allegation applicant was public servant and was senior clerk in the office of CMO and his expenses were more than his known source of income but it 3 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 reflects FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2013 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed in the year 2017 and during investigation applicant was not arrested, however, he fully co-operated with the investigation.

14. Further, it reflects after submission of the charge sheet applicant challenged the proceedings pending against him before this Court in application filed under section 528 BNSS and his application is still pending but as he could not get any interim order in his favour, therefore, he filed anticipatory bail before the court concerned but he could get anticipatory bail either from the court concerned or from this Court and thereafter he approached Apex Court and however initially Apex Court protected him but subsequently, his SLP was dismissed with a direction that applicant may seek regular bail and thereafter when applicant filed regular bail then his bail application has been dismissed.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and observation made by Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra) and this Court in case of Bacchi Devi (supra), this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there was no occasion for the court concerned to reject the bail application of the applicant.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and it appears, out of seven cases in four cases final report has been submitted and in some other cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court.

17. Further, applicant has retired from the service and he is aged about 67 years and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than one and half months.

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

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, 4 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant-Yogendra Singh Chauhan, 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. December 16, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwari, 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. 1212 of 2013, under Sections 13(1)e, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Senior Clerk in the office of CMO and as per allegation, his expenses were more than his known source of income but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.12.2013 i.e. about 12 years before and during investigation, however, applicant fully co-operated but Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without arrest charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.

5. He further submitted that after submission of charge sheet applicant challenged the proceeding pending against him before this Court in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 4052 of 2025 which is though still pending but as applicant could not get any interim order in his favour, therefore, he applied for anticipatory bail but he could not get anticipatory bail from the court concerned and even from this Court and thereafter when 2 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 he approached Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 4700 of 2025 then however, initially Apex Court protected him but on 15.7.2025 his SLP was dismissed with a direction that applicant can seek regular bail and thereafter applicant filed regular bail before the court concerned but the same was dismissed.

6. He further submitted that as during investigation applicant was not arrested therefore after submission of charge sheet, there was no occasion to reject his bail application. He placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 61 and judgement passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another dated 12.8.2025 passed in Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025.

7. He further submitted that applicant has already retired from service and at present he is 67 years old and infirm person.

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and out of seven cases in four cases final report has been submitted and in some other cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court.

9. He further submitted that in the present matter applicant is in jail since

29.10.2025 i.e. for last one and half months.

10. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be released on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

13. However, it appears to be a case of disproportionate income and as per allegation applicant was public servant and was senior clerk in the office of CMO and his expenses were more than his known source of income but it 3 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 reflects FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2013 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed in the year 2017 and during investigation applicant was not arrested, however, he fully co-operated with the investigation.

14. Further, it reflects after submission of the charge sheet applicant challenged the proceedings pending against him before this Court in application filed under section 528 BNSS and his application is still pending but as he could not get any interim order in his favour, therefore, he filed anticipatory bail before the court concerned but he could get anticipatory bail either from the court concerned or from this Court and thereafter he approached Apex Court and however initially Apex Court protected him but subsequently, his SLP was dismissed with a direction that applicant may seek regular bail and thereafter when applicant filed regular bail then his bail application has been dismissed.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and observation made by Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra) and this Court in case of Bacchi Devi (supra), this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there was no occasion for the court concerned to reject the bail application of the applicant.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and it appears, out of seven cases in four cases final report has been submitted and in some other cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court.

17. Further, applicant has retired from the service and he is aged about 67 years and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than one and half months.

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

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, 4 BAIL No. 44400 of 2025 the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant-Yogendra Singh Chauhan, 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. December 16, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)