Sohan Lal v. State of U.P.), hence, the

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., Ms. Reema Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3-Jagdish Singh, Assistant Area Manager, U.P. Transport Corporation, Meerut and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been preferred by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Special Court No. 1/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut seeking Anticipatory Bail in Sessions Case No. 1421 of 2023 (State vs. Dheer Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2022, under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Jagdish Singh (Assistant Regional Manager) has lodged an F.I.R. on 29.11.2022 registered at Case Crime No. 0209 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act against Dheer Singh (Senior Clerk), Yogendra Singh (Driver) and Sohanlal (Conductor) alleging inter-alia that on 24.11.2022, a video was received to him on his mobile phone no. 9412705853, in which accused Dheer Singh was seen accepting money, as bribe, from Yogendra Singh and Sohanlal in lieu of sending them on the route as per their wish. 4-It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. During investigation, the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he has not supported the prosecution case but he has requested the Investigating OfÏcer to investigate the involvement of the persons, who have made the video clip and requested to take legal action against him. The informant, in his statement, has also disclosed that he has received the said video clip from Area Manager, who had received the said video clip from an unknown mobile number. On further investigation, name of the applicant was surfaced from the statement of Pahal Singh and Harish Kumar, who have disclosed that the said video clip was captured on 06.04.2023 by the present applicant. Thereafter investigating ofÏcer introduced the present applicant as an accused in the present case and without proper investigation, submitted charge-sheet against him, in which he has been summoned vide summoning order dated 14.08.2023. Much emphasis has been given by contending that against the applicant, the investigating ofÏcer has not found any evidence that he had viral the said video. No offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the present applicant. Co-accused Sohanlal has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11277 of 2024 (Sohan Lal vs. State of U.P.), hence, the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Under the facts of the case the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. It is also pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history one case being case crime no. 202 of 2018 u/s 323 and 452 I.P.C., in which he has already been acquitted by the trial court. The averment in this regard has been mentioned in para 3 of the supplementary afÏdavit. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial. 5-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., who has accepted notice of this case on

21.02.2025 opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigation investigating ofÏcer after due submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. 6-Ms. Reema Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant has admitted that he had made the video clip, in question. There is a certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act also. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant had made video with a view to blackmail the co-accused persons and other ofÏcers. 7-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that allegation against the applicant is that he has made video of co- accused Dheer Singh accepting bribe. The co- accused Sohanlal who had given bribe money to Dheer Singh has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.11.2024 as noted above, hence, the case of the applicant stands on better footing to that of co-accused Sohanlal. 8-Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice as well as reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that prima-facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial. 9-In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sumit Sharma involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 tamper with the evidence. (iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons. (v) In case, it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating ofÏcer shall be at liberty to file an for cancellation of appropriate application anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 10-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. 11-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., Ms. Reema Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3-Jagdish Singh, Assistant Area Manager, U.P. Transport Corporation, Meerut and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been preferred by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Special Court No. 1/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut seeking Anticipatory Bail in Sessions Case No. 1421 of 2023 (State vs. Dheer Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2022, under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Jagdish Singh (Assistant Regional Manager) has lodged an F.I.R. on 29.11.2022 registered at Case Crime No. 0209 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act against Dheer Singh (Senior Clerk), Yogendra Singh (Driver) and Sohanlal (Conductor) alleging inter-alia that on 24.11.2022, a video was received to him on his mobile phone no. 9412705853, in which accused Dheer Singh was seen accepting money, as bribe, from Yogendra Singh and Sohanlal in lieu of sending them on the route as per their wish. 4-It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. During investigation, the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he has not supported the prosecution case but he has requested the Investigating OfÏcer to investigate the involvement of the persons, who have made the video clip and requested to take legal action against him. The informant, in his statement, has also disclosed that he has received the said video clip from Area Manager, who had received the said video clip from an unknown mobile number. On further investigation, name of the applicant was surfaced from the statement of Pahal Singh and Harish Kumar, who have disclosed that the said video clip was captured on 06.04.2023 by the present applicant. Thereafter investigating ofÏcer introduced the present applicant as an accused in the present case and without proper investigation, submitted charge-sheet against him, in which he has been summoned vide summoning order dated 14.08.2023. Much emphasis has been given by contending that against the applicant, the investigating ofÏcer has not found any evidence that he had viral the said video. No offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the present applicant. Co-accused Sohanlal has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11277 of 2024 (Sohan Lal vs. State of U.P.), hence, the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Under the facts of the case the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. It is also pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history one case being case crime no. 202 of 2018 u/s 323 and 452 I.P.C., in which he has already been acquitted by the trial court. The averment in this regard has been mentioned in para 3 of the supplementary afÏdavit. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial. 5-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., who has accepted notice of this case on

21.02.2025 opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigation investigating ofÏcer after due submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. 6-Ms. Reema Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant has admitted that he had made the video clip, in question. There is a certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act also. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant had made video with a view to blackmail the co-accused persons and other ofÏcers. 7-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that allegation against the applicant is that he has made video of co- accused Dheer Singh accepting bribe. The co- accused Sohanlal who had given bribe money to Dheer Singh has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.11.2024 as noted above, hence, the case of the applicant stands on better footing to that of co-accused Sohanlal. 8-Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice as well as reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that prima-facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial. 9-In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sumit Sharma involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 tamper with the evidence. (iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons. (v) In case, it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating ofÏcer shall be at liberty to file an for cancellation of appropriate application anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 10-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. 11-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad